IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10341 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 07, 2008 Sangeeta and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Manjari Nehru, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** S.D. Anand, J. The petitioners are two sisters-in-law (wives of brother of the husband of the estranged lady) and their husbands. Their summoning had been ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P/7). The impugned order has Crl. Misc. No.M-10341 of 2008 come to be passed by the Court in a (private) complaint filed by respondent No.2 – Sonana, the estranged wife of Rakesh Sekhri, brother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 – Sangeeta and Kanchan respectively. The pure and simple plea on behalf of the petitioners is that they being residents of a town which is at a distance of about 100 kms. from their natal house, were just not in a position to subject the respondent No.2 to any dowry-related torture and there was no occasion for them either to indulge in any such exercise as they could not possibly be beneficiaries even if the alleged dowry demand was met by the natal family of respondent No.2. The further averment is that the petitioners – sisters-in-law were married off much prior to the marriage of their brother - Rakesh Sekhri with respondent No.2. In a bid to resist the plea aforementioned, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that there are precise allegations in the complaint that the dowry articles had been entrusted to the petitioners and further that they used to subject the respondent no.2 to dowry- related torture as they were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by her and they wanted to coerce her to bring more dowry article from her natal family. 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-10341 of 2008 It would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned complaint (Annexure P/6) that the averment in the opening paragraph thereof was that “at the time of marriage one gold set has been given to my mother-in- law, one gold ring to father-in-law, one gold topes to Sangeet and one gold ring to Anil and one Gold ear ring to Kanchan and one gold ring to Sunil Handa one gold Bracelet” (underlined portion indicates the attribution of role to the petitioners before this Court). In paragraph No.2 of the complaint, there is an allegation that on the very first day of her marriage, her sisters-in-law and their husbands taunted her “that the Nague and dowry articles are not according to their standard and our family feel very much insulted in the society and relatives on account of less dowry”. In paragraph no.3 of the complaint, there is an allegation that petitioners – sisters-in-law, along with their husbands visited the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 after two months of her marriage and “all the accused i.e. my mother-in- law Sudesh, my father-in-law Naresh and my husband Rakesh Sekhri started mentally torturing the complainant.” As would be apparent from a perusal of the contents of paragraph no.3 of the complaint, the attribution of the role is only to the parents-in-law and 3 Crl. Misc. No.M-10341 of 2008 husband of the estranged lady. Insofar as the averments made in the course of paragraph no.2 of the complaint are concerned, those are too vague in character. As far as the allegation in paragraph no.1 of the complaint is concerned, it cannot be said that those articles were entrusted to the petitioners as dowry articles. There is plethora of law on the point that the gifts given at the time of marriage cannot be said to constitute a part of the dowry. These very allegations had been made earlier in the FIR (Annexure P/1). There is a precise averment in paragraph no.3 of the present petition that the matter had been investigated by the Investigating Agency which found the petitioners innocent. It is a matter of common observation that an estranged daughter-in-law would endeavour roping in even married sisters-in-law and their husbands, with a view to tarnish the image of the family and cause embarrassment to the family. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned complaint (Annexure P/6) and also the summoning order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P/7) shall stand quashed. November 07, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4 Crl. Misc. No.M-10341 of 2008 5