Criminal Misc. No.M-14054 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-14054 of 2008 Date of decision : 25.11.2009 Harwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Paramjit Kaur ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. K.G.Sharma, Advocate for respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners are related to the husband of respondent- complainant-Paramjit Kaur inasmuch as they are Jeth and sisters of the husband of the estranged wife. The respondent-wife filed a private complaint under Sections 406, 498-A IPC against her husband, her parents-in-law and also the petitioners before this Court. On perusal of the preliminary evidence, the learned Trial Court ordered the summoning of all those arrayed as accused, vide order dated 27.3.2008 (Annexure P-11). The petitioners herein have applied for quashing of the impugned summoning order on a precise averment (made at the time of motion hearing) that there were no allegations with regard to entrustment and demand of dowry against them. I have been through the complaint (Annexure P-10). Though Criminal Misc. No.M-14054 of 2008 -2- **** there is a averment in para 3 thereof that parents of the respondent- complainant “handed over the instridhan articles to accused no.1 and other accused ..... with an understanding to hand over the same to the complainant on her reaching in her-in-laws house”, it is apparent that it is the identity of only the husband of the respondent which is apparent therefrom. There is no categorical averment with regard to handing over of Istridhan articles to the petitioners herein. Even otherwise, a perusal of the further part of para 3 would indicate that the articles allegedly to have been handed over to the petitioners could be the best subject of a customary gift given to the bridegroom's family at the time of marriage. Those articles (golden rings, bangles, ear rings and suit length etc.) cannot be termed to be Istridhan of the respondent. The further averment qua the petitioners appears in para 5 of the complaint wherein there is an allegation that the husband of respondent-complainant used to belabour her “at the instigation of all other accused for bringing insufficient dowry”. These are the only two averments which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant to answer a poser by the Court to invite the attention of this Court to the averments attributing entrustment of dowry articles-istridhan to the petitioners herein. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant relies upon the report dated 10.11.2006 which had been recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhikhiwind. , The plea raised thereby is that the police officer aforementioned had indicted the petitioners herein as well for having retained Istridhan-dowry articles with them and having tortured the respondents for her inability to bring more dowry. In that very context, reliance is also placed upon another report dated 5.11.2006 recorded by Criminal Misc. No.M-14054 of 2008 -3- **** the S.H.O., Police Station, Bhikhiwind to the above effect only. It is argued that the two senior officers of the Police Department having upheld the allegations against the petitioners, they cannot be heard to crave for exoneration by means of quashment. It would be require pertinent notice that, in both the reports, the police officers did not indicate that they had recorded the statements of any witnesses which (statements) could be supportive of the allegations of dowry-related torture against the petitioners qua the respondent. In the concluding para of the report (Annexure R-1), it is indicated that the investigation had been conducted “through secret and open sources”. In Annexure R-2, it is indicated that investigation had made “through secret source and in open”. The source of information indicated by the DSP and SHO are a phenomenon in vacuum and acceptance thereof would amount to endless pursuit of litigation, without the Investigating Agency having examined any witness who could be supportive of the finding by making a substantive statement at the trial. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned complaint and the summoning order dated 27.3.2008 (Annexure P-11) qua the petitioners shall stand quashed. Disposed of accordingly. November 25, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE