IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.67 of 2006. Reserved on 21-7-2008. Date of Decision: 24. 07.2008. _______________________________________________________ Chanchla and others. Petitioners Versus Sujata and another. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?.No For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J.(oral) Petitioners and the proforma respondent were summoned on the complaint of Smt. Sujata wife of Sanjay Kumar, filed under Section 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The petitioners have assailed their summoning order and prayed to quash the complaint against them on the ground that the charges leveled against them were wrong and there were no sufficient grounds to summon them and the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence against them. Further that the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that the complainant had initiated the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she admitted that she was turned out of her matrimonial house one year before filing the said petition which was filed on 19-7-2005 whereas, in para 8 of the complaint, she has stated that she was turned out of the house after giving beatings in the month of July, 2005. Thus, both these pleas are self contradictory and further that the allegations of dowry and cruelty Whether the reporters of the local Newspapers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - were not mentioned the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which proves that the complaint filed by her is totally false and there was no ground to summon the petitioners for the said offences in the instant case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. As per the averments made by the complainant-respondent Sujata in the complaint, she was married to Sanjay Kumar on 8-12- 2003 but thereafter, her husband, who is serving in the army, developed illicit relations with one lady named Babita and abducted her from the house of her in-laws on 25-3-2004 and kept concealed her at his residence in village Taroli, Tehsil and District Chamba in collusion with the other accused persons and she was recovered by the Police from their custody. After this incident, her husband and the accused-petitioners kept on harassing the complainant and started demanding dowry and cash to construct the house by them. When she expressed her inability to do so, they started mal-treating her. In the month of July, 2005 she was given severe beatings and was turned out from her matrimonial house and even her husband proclaimed that he is in the army and could commit five/six murders. Preliminary evidence in the case was led wherein she focused the allegations against her husband only. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, the allegation against them is only that when her family members had gone to the matrimonial house on 17-7-2005 with her, they gave beatings to them. Similar is the statement of PW2 Krishan Chand and PW3 Mohinder. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, it is revealed that there is a general allegation regarding beatings given to the family members of the complainant on 17-7-2005 by the family members - 3 - of proforma respondent which are absolutely vague. Secondly, the plea taken in the maintenance petition and in the instant complaint qua them is quite contradictory. Further, neither she nor her other witnesses have whispered even a single word by name against the petitioners in the preliminary evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners herein were mechanically ordered to be summoned for the alleged offences without application of mind by the trial Magistrate as there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against them. The allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support thereof if taken on its face value, does not make out a case against the petitioners herein. Thus, the complaint and order for summoning them is a baseless and abuse of process of law, therefore, the order dated 21- 3-2006 summoning the petitioners only is hereby set-aside and the complaint against them is hereby quashed. However, the trial court may proceed against the proforma respondent, in accordance with law. The trial court record be returned forthwith. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 24, 2008. (bm)