MANINDER KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 5th November, 1996 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned respondents No.2 to 4, namely, Mohinder Singh (father-in-law), Gurbachan Kaur (mother-in-law) and Jaswinder Kaur (sister-in-law) for offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Mohinder Singh and Gurbachan Kaur for offence under Section 406 IPC. This order has been set aside by the impugned order. The com 32 plainant Maninder Kaur feeling aggrieved has Filed this petition for reversing the impugned order and restoring the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) The brief facts givi rise to this revision petition are as under:

(3.) This petition is being opposed by respondents No.2 to 4, inter alia on the ground that the investigating agency did not find any cogent material to proceed against Mohinder Singh, Gurbachan Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur. Charge was framed only against Surjeet Singh on 20th October, 1994 for offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. On 25th March, 1994, according to the version of the respondents No.2 to 4, the complainant Smt.Maninder Kaur for the first time stated that the articles mentioned in the list were handed over to her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law at the time of the marriage and the same articles were not relumed to her. The allegations were of general and vague nature and related to period from 1987 to 1991 spreading over four years. She was living separately at Gautam Nagar, New Delhi with her husband with effect from 19th March, 1991 and onwards. It is claimed that all the dowry articles were seized from Gautam Nagar and received by her in Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi. The allegations were vague and reckless. Consequently, no valid cognizance could be taken in the year 1987 after a lapse of more than four years. Revision petition by the private parly in State case is otherwise not maintainable.