1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 2798--M of 2008 Date of Decision: 2.7.2009 *** Sewa Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Gurmeet Kaur. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioners No.3 to 5. Petition qua petitioners No.1 & 2 already dismissed. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondent-complainant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of Criminal Complaint dated 27.7.2004 (Annexure P-4), entitled Gurmit Kaur Vs. Satnam Singh & Ors. and also the order dated 22.10.2007 passed therein by dint of which the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint arraying the present petitioners and her husband Satnam Singh(since deceased) with the allegations that her marriage was solemnized with Satnam Singh on 15.11.2000 and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage in the shape of gold items and other articles and were entrusted to the accused persons. It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused persons since were not happy with the dowry brought by her, they started taunting and harassing her and raised a demand of car. Since the demand was not fulfilled, the complainant was turned out of her matrimonial house in three clothes and her Istridhan was mis-utilized by the accused persons and they refused to 2 return the same to her. On these broad allegations, the private complaint was instituted wherein, after recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate, vide the impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2007 summoned the accused persons to face trial under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners who are father-in- law, mother-in-law, wife of husband's brother and married sister of husband of the complainant have preferred the instant petition. It is relevant to mention here that the husband Satnam Singh breathed his last on 22.2.2007. This Court, at the thresh-hold dismissed the instant petition qua petitioners No.1 and 2 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively vide order dated 4.2.2008. Hence, the petition is left qua petitioners No.3 to 5. It has been contended that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged demand of dowry, as leveled in the impugned complaint, since they were living separately from the married couple. It has been pointed out that Satnam Singh was suffering from brain disease and the complainant left him in the odd days of his life and he ultimately died on 22.2.2007. Although Satnam Singh, during his lifetime filed the divorce petition, but subsequently withdrew the same as a sequel to the compromise, but the complainant continued with the impugned complaint just to wreak her vengeance, involving each and every member of the family of husband. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of petitioners No.4 and 5 was solemnized about 20 years back i.e. much prior in time to the marriage of the complainant with their brother. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned summoning order and has prayed for dismissal of the instant petition. The arguments have been scanned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695 (SC), has observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. Further, in the case of Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 313, when a first information report was lodged by the wife 3 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the entire family members of the husband, this Court exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the FIR against the unmarried sisters and brothers, by observing that “it is not believable that the unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband the wife become strained.” Similarly, in the case of Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 332, a criminal complaint was filed under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the husband, his parents and 5 sisters and the proceedings qua sisters were quashed with the observation that the allegations against the sisters are vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. Similarly in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioners are unbelievable and omnibus and have been leveled just to drag them in the criminal proceedings in relation to demand of dowry, harassment, beatings etc. Petitioner No.3 is the wife of brother of Satnam Singh while petitioners No.4 and 5 are married sisters. It cannot be believed that they can be beneficiary to the said demand of dowry raised in the shape of a car. Therefore, the continuance of prosecution against petitioners No.3 to 5 is nothing else but an abuse of process of law. In view of the discussion made above, the instant petition is allowed and consequently the impugned complaint (Annexure P-4) and summoning order dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) to the extent of petitioners No.3 to 5 are quashed. However, the learned trial court shall proceed with the case against remaining summoned accused, in accordance with law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 2,2009 Jiten