Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009(O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 14.12.2009. Manjit Babu @ Manjit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. Criminal Misc. No.63537 of 2009. Allowed as prayed. Written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009 The petitioner is USA based NRI,sister-in-law of respondent no.2 who has been summoned, vide impugned order, to face a trial in complaint No.195 dated 14.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) for offences under Sections 406-498-A IPC. In the course of hearing, this Court has been taken through the First Information Report with a view to be able to find out the correctness or otherwise of plea on behalf of the petitioner that no dowry article ever came to be entrusted to her. After having been through the FIR, it is beyond the pale of Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009(O&M) -2- **** controversy that only two precise allegations against the petitioner herein are that a golden ring was given to her at the time of marriage and that a brief case containing 20 suits was handed over to her. Besides these two allegations, all other allegations against her are general in character and are not capable of judicial cognizance which could end up in fixture of accountability thereof. Insofar as the handing over of the golden ring to the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said to be a part of the 'dowry'. It is customary in the Indian society to make a presentation of gifts like ring etc. on the occasion of marriage. Insofar as the entrsutment of brief case is concerned, the connecting averment is that the brief case was handed over to the petitioner herein with an understanding that the suits were meant for exclusive use by respondent lno.2 and that those will be made available to her by the petitioner herein on demand at the matrimonial house. In that context to it may be noticed that the suits aforementioned cannot be deemed to be a part of the 'dowry', particularly when there is want of a precise averment that there was any demand upon the petitioner herein to hand over those suits to respondent no.2 or she had declined to do so. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that allowing the impugned prosecution to continue qua the petitioner herein would amount to an abuse of process of Court. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned prosecution shall stand quashed qua petitioner herein. Disposed of accordingly. December 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE