Criminal Misc. No.729-MA of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.729-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 21.8.2008 Smt. Kamini .....Appellant Versus Pankaj Malik and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Navin Sharan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. For non-suiting the appellant/complainant, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the following evidence based observations in the course of para Nos. 13 and 16 of the order under challenge which are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “13. After hearing the rival contention of both the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it has been observed by this Court that the allegations levelled by the complainant against accused persons are under Sections 498A/406 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex. D1 is petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage filed by Kamini, against Pankaj, accused no.1 in the court wherein she has Criminal Misc. No.729-MA of 2007 -2- **** specifically mentioned in para no. 3 that after the marriage the parties lived together in the house of respondent and cohabited with each other but out of this wedlock, no child was born but when she apeared in the witness box, she stated that there is no martial relation between her and accused no.1. In this manner, there is a contradiction between the evidence led by the complainant party as well as petition Ex. D1 filed by her in the court of District Judge. The marriage between Kamini and Pankaj has been dissolved by the judgment dated 3.1.98 by the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak Ex. D2. The complainant specifically made allegations in the present complaint that her father spent Rs. 6 lacs in the marriage of her. The complainant again got lodged FIR against her in-laws of second marriage. FIR is Ex. D3. Bare perusal of FIR Ex. D3 shows that in the same fashion, this FIR has been got registered wherein she also stated that her parents have spent Rs.6 lacs in her marriage. She further mentioned in this FIR that on the first night of her marriage, her husband Ramesh has stated that there is some problem in his private part, therefore, he could not maintain the marital relations with her. In the present case, she also made such type of allegations in her evidence that parents of present accused have not got maintained her marital relation Criminal Misc. No.729-MA of 2007 -3- **** between accused no.1 and her. xxx xxx xxx xxx 16. Keeping in view the dicta laiddown by the Hon'ble Courts in the above said judgments, it has been observed by this Court that complainant has stated that all the accused treated her cruelty but there was no specific allegations against the accused persons. She further stated that after few days of marriage, accused started torturing her. The complainant has made allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles and misappropriation, not specific with reference to accused persons. The complainant herself admitted that she along with her husband was residing in Delhi. PW-1 has stated in cross-examination that they had recovered jewellary which was given by her parents. The detail of gold ornaments is given in Ex. P1 i.e. about 30 tola and the same has been with her possession. She further stated that she did not know whether any list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage or not. After marriage, she remained in her-in-laws house about 3-4 months. It is correct that she has filed complaint against her second husband in women cell. Her mother PW-2 Shakuntla has stated in cross examination that it is correct that her daughter-in-law filed a case of demand of dowry against them. Complainant has mentioned in her Criminal Misc. No.729-MA of 2007 -4- **** complaint that Bhanji of her husband is Prem, accused no.4 and her husband is Surender Kochar, accused no.3”. It was in the light of above observations that the learned Magistrate negatived the appellant's presentation that respondents/accused were guilty of commission of offence under Section 498/406 IPC. The view taken by the learned Trial Magistrate appears to be in order. It does not suffer from the vice of non application of mind. Infact, it appears to be a possible view. There is nothing perverse in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Magistrate. Dismissed. August 21, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No.729-MA of 2007 -5- ****