IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-24194 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.8.2010 Ravinder Kaur ......Petitioner Vs. Sstate of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Jasmeet Singh Bhatia,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Ravinder Kaur for quashing of complaint dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/420/498-A read with Section 120-B IPC as well as summoning order dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 406/498-A IPC passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 31.8.2009. In response to notice of motion, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed which is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is married sister-in-law of the complainant (i.e. sister of husband of complainant). The marriage of petitioner took place in the year 1998 whereas the marriage of her brother with complainant took Crl.Misc.No.M-24194 of 2009 [2] place on 19.2.2000 and as such the petitioner got married two years prior to the date of marriage of the complainant. The petitioner is residing in her matrimonial home at village Mullan Pur Khurd Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib, whereas the complainant was residing in village Ballion, Tehsil Samrala and District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that only allegation against the present petitioner is that some jewellery and suits were handed over to her at the time of marriage which are in the form of gifts. There is no specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry or harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ramesh and others v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 68 and judgments of this Court in Rajinder Mohan Kashyap v. Om Parkash Sharma 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 274, Harmel Singh and another v. State of U.T.Chandigarh and another 2007(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 789, Anju Bala and others v. State of Punjab and another 2006(3) RCR (Crl.) 191 and Gurdev Singh v. Smt.Nachhattar Kaur alias Mandip Kaur 1993(3) R.C.R.(Crl.) 328 in support of his contention. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it has been mentioned that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage by her parents, other gifts and istridhan was also handed over to the accused but the complainant was harassed by the accused for demand of dowry. A specific demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was there. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits Crl.Misc.No.M-24194 of 2009 [3] that the petitioner actively participated in the demand of dowry, harassment as well as maltreatment and the complainant was given beatings on different occasions. An application was also moved to the police and the petitioner and other accused admitted their guilt and assured for not repeating the same in future. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the complaint, summoning order as well as other material/documents available on record, including reply filed by respondent No.2. In this case, the marriage between brother of the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19.2.2000. As per case of the complainant, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage as her husband was unemployed. The complainant was sent by the accused persons to her parental house and she was harassed with regard to demand of dowry. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was filed before the Court at Samrala, which was later on got withdrawn on 26.7.2003 as compromise was effected with the intervention of the police as well as other respectables of the village and respondent No.2 joined the company of her husband at her matrimonial house. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna under Sections 406/420/498-A IPC read with Section 120-B IPC on 20.10.2003 alleging various allegations against all the accused. On the basis of complaint, JMIC, Khanna summoned the Crl.Misc.No.M-24194 of 2009 [4] present petitioner as well as other accused vide summoning order dated 12.3.2009. The complaint as well as the summoning order are subject -matter of challenge in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the complaint as well as summoning order mainly on the ground that the petitioner is married sister-in-law and her marriage took place two years prior to the marriage of the complainant and she is happily residing in her matrimonial house at village Mullan Pur Tehsil and District Fatehgarh. She has no concern with the matrimonial life of her brother and complainant. The allegations are vague and not specific and there is no demand of dowry and no offence is made out under Section 406 IPC. As per case of the petitioner, neither the dowry articles were handed over to the petitioner nor those dowry articles have been dishonestly misappropriated by the petitioner. Only some ceremonial gifts were given at the time of marriage which have already been returned. In the complaint, there are no specific allegations against the present petitioner. All the allegations are general in nature and not specific with regard to demand of dowry or harassment. There is no case in the complaint that dowry articles were entrusted to the present petitioner and she misappropriated those dowry articles. Moreover, the petitioner is married sister-in-law who had already been married two years prior to the date of marriage of the complainant and she has been residing in village Mullan Pur Khurd, which is at distant from the place where the Crl.Misc.No.M-24194 of 2009 [5] complainant is residing. Even if it is presumed that all the allegations contained in the complaint are correct, still it does not make out any case under Section 406/498-A IPC. In the complaint, no specific allegation is alleged against the present petitioner. It has simply been mentioned that she along with other co-accused demanded dowry and harassed the petitioner and some of the dowry articles were given to the petitioner. Those items given to the petitioner at the time of marriage do not form a part of istridhan as these items were customary gifts given at the time of marriage. The allegations qua the present petitioner are quite vague and general in nature which do not attract Section 406 and 498-A IPC. Moreover, there is a tendency to implicate all the family members in such like cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that tendency has developed for roping all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprit. The efforts for involving other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution against the real accused as observed in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others 2002(2) RCR (Crl.) 695 (SC). In view of the submissions and the law positon made above, the complaint as well as the summoning order are totally illegal and it is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 406/498-A IPC passed by Crl.Misc.No.M-24194 of 2009 [6] Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna and other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the present petitioner. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 23, 2010. raghav