LAWS(DLH)-1988-1-35

HARBANS SINGH Vs. GURSHARAN KAUR

Decided On January 07, 1988
HARBANS SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURSHARAN KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gursharan Kaur, respondent No. 1, was married to one Gurbarshan Singh, son of the present petitioners. Harbans Singh and Smt. Darshan Kaur, according to Hindu rites on July 12, 1981. Gursharan Kaur lived at the house of her husband and parents-in-law in Delhi some time upto July, 1983. Gursharan Kaur filed a complaint against her husband Gurdarshan Singh and her two parents-in-law who are the present petitioners, under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('The Act' for short). It was alleged by her that her parents bad given a number of household articles and jewellery and some cash in instalments to the three accused persons, namely her husband, Gursharan Singh, and her both parents-in-law at the time of her marriage. The three accused persons made demands for giving cash as dowry by the parents of the complainant at the time of her marriage with Gursbaran Singh. A sum of Rs. 2,000.00 in all was paid by her parents to Gursharan Singh in two instalments of Rs. 1,000.00 each after their marriage as dowry. The complainant was turned out from her husband's house on July 2, 1983 after she bad been beaten and insulted on the ground that her parents bad not fulfilled their promise of paying total cash of Rs. 20.000.00 towards dowry. Gursharan Singh, husband of the complainant, however, later approached her and her parents that he was prepared to keep her in a separate house and that she should join him. On that the parents of the complainant arranged to get a house to Gursharan Singh for his living, as also for the living of the complainant Gursharan Kaur. They both started living together. Both the husband and Smt. Gursharan Kaur lived together in that house for a few days. Then again on July 16, 1983 she was turned out by her husband whereafter she has been residing with her parents. It is further alleged that on July 17, 1983 the complainant reported the matter to the police that her dowry articles may be got returned to her from her husband. At the intervention of the police and Mohalla Panchayat people some of the articles given in dowry were returned by Gursharan Singh to her and some of the articles of dowry which were given to all the three accused persons were not returned to her for one year whereupon the complainant filed the complaint against all the three accused persons in the court on July 12,1984.

(2.) . The petitioner gave her statement and also examined her father Gurbachan Singh and one police constable as her witnesses in the preliminary enquiry held by the learned Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate then summoned Gursbaran Sinah, husband of the complainant, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act. He, however, declined to summon the other two accused person in the case. The complainant Gursbaran Kaur filed a revision petition against that order of the learned Magistrate to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. It was stated that the learned Magistrate was in error in not summoning the two parents of her husband and prayed that they be directed to be summoned alongwith her husband in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed the summoning of the two parents of her husband also for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act. Gursharan Singh bad also moved a petition to the Additional Sessions Judge for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate summoning him in the case. His revision petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) . Harbans Singh and Darshan Kaur have now filed the preject application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the sald order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The application has been opposed by the complainant, Gursharan Kaur.