Crl.Revision No.188 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.188 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.10.2009 Gurinder Kaur ... Petitioner versus Mohinder Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Gurinder Kaur filed this revision to impugn the order dated 10.10.2008 rendered by CJM, Patiala, vide which complaint under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwail, Patiala, was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 10.10.2008, present revision was instituted by Gurinder Kaur. Gurinder Kaur filed private complaint under Sections 406/498- A/506 IPC on the allegation that her marriage was solemnized with Manmohan Singh on 14.9.2002. Mohinder Kaur and Harmesh Singh are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner, whereas Parminder Singh is her brother-in-law and Gurmeet Kaur is sister-in-law. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by the father of the petitioner. After marriage, husband of the petitioner had cordial relations with the petitioner. After one year, Manmohan Singh had joined a private company. Manmohan Singh used to visit the house off and on to meet the petitioner, but there is no issue from this wedlock. On account of this, respondents use Crl.Revision No.188 of 2009 2 to taunt and maltreat the petitioner. Petitioner was pressurised to agree for divorce so that they can perform second marriage of Manmohan Singh. When petitioner did not agree to divorce Manmohan Singh, then respondents started misbehaving and maltreating the petitioner. On 2.7.2007 at about 6.30 PM, respondents demanded Rs.50,000/- to start business to settle Parminder Singh. When petitioner shown her inability to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents, then she was given beatings. Respondents had threatened the petitioner to eliminate her if the matter is brought to the notice of police. After preliminary evidence, vide impugned order dated 10.10.2008, the complaint was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that evidence on the file was not properly scrutinized. No reason was given as to why respondents were not summoned under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC. Subsequent allegation is with regard to entrustment of dowry articles and misappropriation of of the dowry articles by the respondents. Dowry articles are still in possession of the respondents. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage of the petitioner. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent to perform the religious ceremonies, but unfortunately, the petitioner failed to give birth to a child and on this account, respondents started taunting and maltreating the petitioner. The petitioner was harassed and forced to agree for divorce. While summoning the accused, the Court is to see whether a prima facie case is made out to summon the accused. The Court is not to see whether evidence on the file is sufficient for conviction of the accused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone Crl.Revision No.188 of 2009 3 through the file. No ground to interfere with the impugned order. After going through the evidence on the file, trial Court has rightly opined that no prima facie case is made out to summon any of the accused under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC. According to the evidence, the petitioner was married with Manmohan Singh on 14.9.2002. Manmohan Singh is serving in Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner is residing at her in-laws' house. Manmohan Singh is not one of the respondents. Petitioner Gurinder Kaur appeared as her own witness and stated that sufficient dowry was given by her parents. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on the reception of the marriage party. After some time, respondents started taunting her by stating that she has not brought sufficient dowry. Marriage was solemnized on 14.9.2002, whereas the present complaint was instituted in the month of March, 2008. In case after some time of her marriage the respondents had started taunting the petitioner for want of dowry, then why complaint in the month of March, 2008, when the marriage was solemnized in the month of September, 2002. Allegation of the petitioner is that she was given beatings by the respondents and the respondents threatened to eliminate her if matter is brought to the notice of anybody. No particular month and year was given when the petitioner was given beatings. If the petitioner was given beatings, then why no complaint to any authority. No MLR on the file. According to the petitioner, neighbours and some passer-bye had rescued her from the clutches of the respondents, but names of the neighbours or the persons, who had rescued her from the clutches of the respondents, are not mentioned in the complaint. Petitioner had approached SSP, Patiala. Complaint in writing Crl.Revision No.188 of 2009 4 was filed, but copy of the complaint is not on the file. If copy was not available with the petitioner, then record could easily be summoned from the office of SSP, Patiala. Petitioner further stated that complaint was also sent to Human Rights Commission, but no copy of the complaint is on the file. Vague allegation that dowry articles were entrusted to the respondents. Manmohan Singh, husband of the petitioner, appeared as CW2 and stated that in his absence, respondents use to torture the petitioner. Respondents gave beatings to the petitioner and demanded payment. Lastly, stated that that he has no issue. His parents have threatened to disown him, but statement of Manmohan Singh is without any evidentiary value because in his presence, respondents had not given beatings to the petitioner. Respondents did not demand cash or dowry articles in presence of Manmohan Singh. If respondents used to harass and maltreat the petitioner for want of dowry, then why no complaint to any authority. Manmohan Singh has not stated a word that complaints were sent to the SSP, Patiala, and Human Rights Commission. Manmohan Singh lastly admitted that he had filed complaint to the office of SSP, Patiala, but no action was taken. In support of this allegation, record was not summoned from the office of SSP, Patiala. In case there was a complaint, then what action against the opposite party. CW3 Amarjit Kaur is the mother, whereas CW4 Jagdish Singh is the father of the petitioner. Both have supported the prosecution version, but their statements are without any evidentiary value because they are not the eye witnesses. As per these witnesses, one gold ring was given to father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jeth, each. Other dowry articles were also given at the time of marriage. On 2.7.2007, respondents have compelled the Crl.Revision No.188 of 2009 5 petitioner to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents. When she had shown her inability to bring Rs.50,000/-, then she was given beatings. But as discussed earlier, no complaint to any authority. No MLR on the file. CW3 and CW4 stated that on telephone, the petitioner had disclosed about the incident to them. In case the petitioner was being harassed for want of dowry, then where is the complaint to the SSP or Human Rights Commission. No documentary proof on the file that the petitioner is residing separately from the respondents and dowry articles are in the custody of the respondents. In case the petitioner is residing with the respondents, then no question of misappropriation of the dowry articles. Allegation of the petitioner is that the respondents threatened to eliminate her and her husband. But no complaint to any authority. Manmohan Singh stated that he is serving in Himachal Pradesh and apprehends that his parents are to disinherit him and throw away his house hold articles. Evidence on the file shows that no prima facie case is made out to summon any of the respondents under any Sections of the IPC. If revisional Court is of the view that the impugned order is not legal one, then direction is to be given to the CJM to hold further enquiry, but evidence on the file shows that no prima facie case is made out to summon any of the respondents under any Sections of IPC. In fact, there seems to be a family dispute. Manmohan Singh is serving in Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner is residing at her in-laws' house. In the light of above discussion, petition being without merit is dismissed. 28.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE