Criminal Misc. No. 34451-M of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 34451-M of 2007 Date of decision : 28.8.2008 Smt. Raj Rani and others .....Petitioners Versus Pirthi Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rahul Deshwal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Mst. Minto, a daughter of respondent/complainant Pirthi Singh, was married to Anil Kumar, deceased son of Mst. Raj Rani petitioner-accused whose husband predeceased her. Petitioners Raghbir, Sukhbir and Jasbir are real brothers of petitioner Mst. Raj Rani. After the performance of 13th day ceremony of Anil Kumar, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 498-A/406/506 IPC against the petitioners herein on an allegation that the dowry articles given by him to his daughter Mst. Minto at the time of marriage to deceased Anil Kumar, had been retained by the petitioners herein who had also been torturing Mst. Minto as they were not satisfied with the adequacy of dowry brought by her. Respondent herein otherwise alleged that he had given sufficient dowry at the time of engagement and also the marriage. The further, averment is that Mst. Minto was despatched from the matrimonial house on August 30, and she is residing, ever since then, at Criminal Misc. No. 34451-M of 2007 -2- **** her parental house. A Pancnayat of relatives and respectables of the locality was convened in October, 2000 to resolve the controversy but the petitioners-accused did not agree to return the articles of dowry. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused visited the house of respondent/complainant on 2.10.2000 and made an abortive attempt to belabour Mst. Minto who was saved on account of the intervention by the respectables of the village. The respondent filed a plea in the relevant behalf before the police of Police Station. Madhuban, but no action was taken against petitioners herein as they wield influence over the police. On perusal of the preliminary evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal ordered the summoning of the petitioners herein for trial under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC vide order dated 22.2.2001. The trial proceeded and charges were framed against the petitioners/accused vide order dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P-4). It was thereafter that the present petition for the quashing of order Annexure P-2 and also order Annexure P-4 was filed. The plea for quashing deserves to be allowed. The reasons therefor are as under:- It is apparent from the record that the petitioner Mst. Raj Rani had filed a civil suit (No. 124 dated 16.9.2000) against Mst. Minto and official respondents including Life Insurance Corporation of India to obtain the release of the proportionate insurance policy amount to her and Mst. Minto in equal share. That suit ended in a compromise between the plaintiff therein and Mst. Minto as both agreed to the sharing of the amount aforementioned in equal shares. Mst. Minto, has otherwise raised a plea( in the course of the written statement- a copy whereof has been placed on this file) that Mst. Raj Rani “lives at Jagadhari and she was Criminal Misc. No. 34451-M of 2007 -3- **** never dependent upon the deceased Shri Anil Kumar, as she is enjoying pension of her husband and she never resided with the deceased Sh. Anil Kumar at Yamuna Nagar.” Apart therefrom, it would be evident from the pleadings raised by Mst. Minto, daughter of respondent/complainant, that Mst. Raj Rani was not joint in mess and residence with her deceased son Anil Kumar. Insofaras the other petitioners are concerned, they are real brothers of Mst. Raj Rani and are residents of Karnal. The dowry articles, by the very nature of things, could not have been handed over to them and they could not have been beneficiaries, even if the alleged dowry demand was met. The averment made on behalf of the petitioners that Mst. Minto re-married thereafter and is leading matrimonial life with her husband, was not contested at the time of arguments before this Court. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that impugned complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition shall stand allowed. The orders Annexures P/2 and P/4 shall stand quashed. August 28, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No