Criminal Misc. No. M-26856 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26856 of 2011 Date of decision:- 14.09.2011 Seema Devi ...Petitioner Versus Deepak Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.7.2011 (Annexure P-4) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 02.2.2006 with Anoop Kumar son of Jagdish according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On 30.7.2006 the petitioner has moved a complaint before the SHO Police Station Ateli, District Mahendergarh against her in-laws. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR No.108 dated 30.7.2006 was registered at Police Station Ateli under Sections 498- A,406, 506, 34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against two accused namely Anoop Singh-husband and Kitabo-mother-in-law. Accused Deepak(brother-in-law) and Jagdish(father-in-law) were kept in column No.2. The petitioner appeared as PW1 on 23.7.2009 and thereafter made an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for Criminal Misc. No. M-26856 of 2011 -2- summoning Deepak and Jagdish as accused on the ground that there were specific allegation of cruelty against both the respondents. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.4.2010 (Annexure P-3). Subsequently, revision was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2011 (Annexure P-4). Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have not considered the object of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the right perspective. In the facts of the present case the marriage took place on 2.2.2006. As per complaint on 3.2.2006 itself the in-laws started ill-treating her for bringing insufficient dowry. There are specific allegations against Jagdish and Deepak in the complaint as well as in the FIR. In the statement made by Seema as PW1 she has specifically stated that her brother-in-law Deepak and father-in-law Jagdish had raised a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- after the marriage. As per statement of Seema, she had stayed at Jodhpur after marriage for a period of 1-½ months. She admitted in her cross- examination that Deepak son of Jagdish was engineer in a software company at Delhi. While dismissing the revision petition the Lower Court has come to a conclusion that the allegations against Jagdish and Deepak are general in nature. No merits. Dismissed. 14.09.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE