Criminal Revision No.370 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.370 of 1990 Date of decision: February 15, 2008 State of Punjab … Petitioner Versus Ravi Bedi and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State Mr. Pradip Bhawdari, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Kulwant Kaur was married with Ashwani Kumar Bedi on 18th May, 1986. Case FIR No.125 dated 01.08.1987 was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana under Section 406, 498-A IPC. This FIR was lodged by Kulwant Kaur, who stated that at the time of marriage, various articles of dowry and cash worth Rs.51000/- were given to the in- laws parents and the money was also spent. It was further stated that after 10 days of the marriage, Ashwani Kumar had gone to Germany. It has been stated by the State counsel that Ashwani Kumar has been declared as proclaimed offender. In the FIR, eight accused were named. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 12th August, 1988 discharged Ghoga, Criminal Revision No.370 of 1990 2 Shamma and Sampati and came to the conclusion that offence under Section 406, 498-A is made out against Ravi Bedi, Raman Bedi, Surinder Kaur and Reeta. Aggrieved against the order dated 12th August, 1988, revision was preferred by Ravi Bedi, Raman Bedi and Surinder Kaur and Reeta. It is admitted that Ravi Bedi, Raman Bedi and Reeta were unmarried brothers and sister of Ashwani Kumar whereas, Surinder Kaur is mother-in-law of the complainant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana accepted the revision and discharged all the four petitioners before him. Order of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is impugned before me. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while accepting the revision, stated that there are vague allegations against the accused and it was further stated that even though it is stated in the FIR that complainant was maltreated for the demand of Maruti Car, there is no specific allegation as to which of the accused has committed the offence of cruelty. Taking into consideration that Ravi Bedi, Raman Bedi and Reeta were unmarried brothers and sister, the order of discharge qua them is not being set aside. Mr.Bhawdari has stated that Ravi Bedi was born in year 1974 and similarly he stated that Raman Bedi and Reeta were the minor at the time of the marriage. Since minor brothers and sister have no role to play in the demand of dowry and the cruelty, therefore, the order of discharge qua them need not be disturbed by this revisional Court. However impugned order qua Surinder Kaur, mother-in-law cannot be sustained. Section 498- A specifically states that husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, if they subject such woman to cruelty, are to be punished. Cruelty and demand of dowry are matter of evidence. At the time of framing of the Criminal Revision No.370 of 1990 3 charge, only prima facie allegations are to be seen. Truth and veracity of the allegations is not to be gone into. A mere suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. So the order of discharge qua Surinder Kaur, mother-in-law is set aside. She will appear before the trial Court on or before 30th April, 2008 to face the trial. However, the order of discharge qua Ravi Bedi, Raman Bedi and Reeta is accepted. Revision petition is disposed off in above terms. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 15, 2008. rps