Crl. Misc. No.M-19432 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-19432 of 2010 Date of Decision:-26.07.2010 Ramesh Kumar & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the Petitioners. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Crl. Misc.No.37506 of 2010 Application seeking exemption under Section 482 Cr.PC for placing o record the copy of the judgment dated 10.4.2010 and from filing certified copy of Annexure A-1 is allowed and Annexure A-1 is taken on record. Crl. Misc.No.M-19432 of 2010 Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of criminal complaint no.28 dated 11.02.2009 titled as Sunil Kumar Vs. Ramesh Bansal and Others as well as Crl. Misc. No.M-19432 of 2010 # 2# summoning order dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned CJM Mansa. Facts in brief are that petitioner no.3 Shilpa daughter of petitioners no.1 & 2 (father and mother) got married to complainant- Sunil Kumar(respondent no.2) on 4th September 2008. The marriage was settled by petitioner no.4 Jeet Kumar and one Vinod Kumar being mediators. Petitioner no.3 Shilpa suffered abdominal pain on 10th of January 2009 and after thorough check up including Ultra Sound at Civil Hospital, Mansa she was found with a seven months pregnancy. Another Ultra Sound was conducted from City Colour Ultra Sound Centre Mansa by petitioner no.3 Shilpa on her own account and as per that report also submitted by Dr. Rakesh Garg she was found to be seven months pregnant. A Panchayat was convened by husband Sunil Kumar(respondent no.2) alleging that the fact of prior pregnancy of Shilpa had been concealed from him and thus he had been cheated. It is alleged that petitioner no.5 Vikas Kumar in the presence of the Panchyat threatened Sunil Kumar complainant that he has to own and adopt the child as his own. It is further alleged that petitioners no.1 to 3 tried to extort a sum of rupees seven lacs for getting the marriage dissolved, failing which Sunil Kumar and his family members were to be roped in a false dowry case. It is further alleged that the fact of pregnancy of petitioner no.3 Shilpa was within the knowledge of parents of the petitioner(no.1 & 2) and respondents no.4 & 5 at the time of marriage, which was concealed from respondent-complainant and thereby the complaint dated 13.2.2009 has been filed wherein the Crl. Misc. No.M-19432 of 2010 # 3# petitioners have been summoned to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned CJM has passed the impugned order of summoning without there being sufficient evidence on record to constitute the offences for which the petitioners have been summoned. He further submits that the allegations in the complaint also do not constitute the ingredients of the offences for which they have been charged. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner this court is not inclined to accept the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioners. The complainant has examined himself in preliminary evidence and proved on record the prescription slips dated 10.1.2009 of Civil Hospital, Mansa as Ex.C-2, copy of ultrasoungraphy report dated 10.1.2009 as Ex.C-3, copy of Sonography photo as Ex.C-4, copy of prescription slip of Dr. Monica Singla as Ex.C-5, copy of ultrasonography report dated 10.1.2009 of Dr. Rakesh Garg as Ex.C-6, copy of ultrasonography photo as Ex.C-7, copy of application dated 3.2.2009 filed by the complainant to the SSP, Mansa as Ex.C-8. It is quite well settled that the court at the time of summoning in a complaint case is not required to go delve deep into merits of the case, what is required is that on consideration of the preliminary evidence the court is satisfied that the allegations call for a further probe. It is not disputed that the petitioner has also been granted a decree of divorce on the ground that it was concealed from him at the time of marriage with Shilpa that she was carrying a prior pregnancy. In view of the above the opinion formed in the present case Crl. Misc. No.M-19432 of 2010 # 4# by the learned trial court in summoning the petitioners in light of the allegations made against the petitioners does not suffer from any illegality which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 26th July, 2010 Vinay