CRM No.M-18093 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18093 of 2009 Date of decision:- 30.11.2011 Sohan Lal and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Chandigarh (UT) and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:-Mr. A.D.S.Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate, for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.S.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the summoning order dated 19.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioners have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in Complaint No.99 of 2005 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC as well as the order dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner challenging the summoning order. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not specifically make any allegation against the petitioners and they have been stated to have incited accused No.1, namely, Ashok Kumar-husband of the complainant to demand dowry or to give beating or throw her out from the house. His further contention is that there is CRM No.M-18093 of 2009 -2- no evidence on record, which would differentiate the case qua accused Nos.4 to 9, who have not been summoned by the trial Court. His contention is that as per proviso to Section 5(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Act'), the inquiry should have been conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector in this case would not be in accordance with law, therefore, reliance placed by the Court on this report while issuing summons to the petitioners, cannot sustain. His further contention is that on complaint submitted by the complainant earlier, inquiries have been held by different authorities and in all the inquiries the allegations made by the respondent has not found to be correct. He accordingly prays for the acceptance of the present petition. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have been rightly summoned by the trial Court, on a complaint filed by the respondent in Court under Section 498-A, 406, 420 and 120- B IPC on the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 202 Cr.P.C. had referred the matter for inquiry to the SHO concerned. On receipt of the said report, the trial Court on consideration of the same as well as the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, has summoned the petitioners along with their son Ashok Kumar as accused to face trial. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry should have been held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police would not be applicable and in any case the proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioners are under the provision of Indian Penal Code and not under the 1976 Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. CRM No.M-18093 of 2009 -3- A complaint was filed by respondent-Rashmi Rani on 18.04.2005 against the petitioners along with seven others. On the basis of the allegations made therein and the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the Court in order to satisfy itself further, referred the matter to the SHO concerned for inquiry while exercising its power under Section 202 Cr.P.C. A report was submitted by the SHO concerned on 10.02.2006. On considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant as also the report submitted by the SHO under Section 202 Cr.P.C., trial Court having satisfied itself that there was prima facie case made out against the accused No.1-Ashok Kumar, accused No.2-Sohan Lal and accused No.3-Darshana Rani summoned them under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 120-B IPC but others accused Nos.4 to 9, who were all near relatives of the petitioners were not summoned. This order was passed on 19.07.2006 (Annexure P-1). Against this order, petitioners had filed a revision petition, which was considered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure P-19). It is at this stage that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging these two orders. A perusal of the summoning order as also the revisional order leave no manner of doubt that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence led by the complainant and has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with provisions of the statute. As is apparent from the orders passed, report submitted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the SHO has been duly considered by the Court along with the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, summons have only been issued to the petitioners and their son, Ashok Kumar, who is husband of the complainant. It would would not be out of way to mention here that both the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the CRM No.M-18093 of 2009 -4- complainant. The trial Court while exercising its power under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has called upon the SHO to inquire into the case and submit its report. This has been done with the intention to satisfy itself, when the statute gives such a power to the Court and the same is exercised in accordance thereto the summoning order of the Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the orders passed being in accordance with law, do not call for any interference by this Court. A ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry, which has been held, is not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as is mandated under the provisio 5(2) of the 1976 Act. This has been reproduced in para 20 of the petition, which reads as follows:- "Provided that no Police Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act or make any arrest therefor." Dowry Prohibition Act is of the year 1961 and not of 1976 as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner. The provision reproduced above, which has been pressed into service by the counsel for the petitioner does not form part of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A deliberate effort has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to mislead this Court by reproducing a provision which does not exist on the statute book. This Court refrains itself from passing any punitive observation but cannot refrain itself from observing that the counsel, who is an officer of the Court, is required to be fair to the Court and should not make an effort to mislead or misguide the Court as the relationship of the Court and counsel is based on faith and mutual respect. In any case, the petitioners have not been summoned for any offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and therefore, the contention of the counsel for the CRM No.M-18093 of 2009 -5- petitioner cannot sustain. Finding no merits in this petition, the same stands dismissed. 30.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE