Criminal Revision No. 731 of 1992 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 731 of 1992 Date of Decision: 12.2.2008. Nirmala Devi …Petitioner Versus Roop Lal and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This Court is dismayed at the kind of reasoning undertaken by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara. Not only the reasoning is palpably untenable but the inferences drawn cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order dated 4.5.1992, whereby the accused were discharged in a complaint preferred by wife under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, is set aside. Complainant/petitioner was married with Roop Lal on 6.11.1983 at Phagwara. She has given the details of Stri Dhan given and cruelty, harassment and maltreatment inflicted upon her by the respondents. Complainant after institution of the complaint led her Criminal Revision No. 731 of 1992 2 preliminary evidence and on the basis of which accused No.1, 9, 11 and 12 were summoned. For the purpose of charge, complainant appeared as PW.1. She also examined Surinder Singh as PW.2 and her brother Amarjit as PW.3. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, while discharging the accused, has given the following three reasons:- 1. It has been stated that ornaments have been meant for bride and were not worn at the time of marriage, therefore, inference should be drawn that no ornaments were given at the marriage; 2. that the parents of the complainant had not appeared, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the dowry articles were given (the trial Court became oblivious of the fact that the complainant had examined her brother Amarjit); 3. that since the marriage was performed under the photographs of Dr. Ambedkar and Mahatma, same is to be taken as a marriage as per Buddhist religious rites and Buddhism is a modern religion and in cross-examination, this fact was also admitted by the complainant. The trial Court lost sight of the fact that in Indian society whatever religion its citizens may profess. Dowry or Stri Dhan is given at Criminal Revision No. 731 of 1992 3 the time of marriage. It is equally sad that order of discharge, which was passed on 4.5.1992, is being set aside by this Court after 16 years. The wife has been made to suffer because the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Phagwara, was for the reasons, which cannot be appreciated on the judicial side. A higher Court cannot say further than this. Wife/complainant is required to be compensated. The present revision petition is accepted and cost of Rs.10,000/- is awarded, which shall be borne by respondent No.1-husband. Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate, who wanted to vehemently defend this judgment has stated that since period of 16 years has passed the parties may have the better sense and they should be given an opportunity to part gracefully or resume their life. Be as it may, this Court cannot at this juncture come to the rescue of the accused/respondents on the prayer made by Mr. Raina. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 12, 2008 “DK”