SEEMA Vs. JASWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/accused, Seema, Harcharan Kaur, Baby alias Pritpal Kaur Bedi and Sonia have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing criminal complaint titled "Jaswinder Kaur v. Gurpreet Singh and others"(Annexure P-1), filed under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal code, summoning order dated 12.2.2008 and the consequential proceeding initiated thereon.

(2.) According to them, marriage of Jaswinder Kaur, respondent- complainant, was solemnized with Gurpreet Singh on 19.1.2003 and they lived as such at Ludhiana and from that wedlock, one daughter-Saloni, was born on 21.7.2004. The complaint has been filed by the complainant due to difference of opinion between her and her husband. No offences under Crl. Misc. No. M-25191 of 2009 -2- Sections 406 and 498-A IPC is made out against them from that complaint and they were falsely implicated on account of their relationship with Gurpreet Singh. Petitioners No. 1 and 4 are his married sisters whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the sisters of his mother. There is no allegation against them in the complaint that they also committed said offences. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 16.4.2000 and she is having two children, aged 7 and 1 1/2 years and petitioner No. 4 was married on 22.9.1996 having two minor children, aged 12 and 7 years. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are old ladies, aged 50 and 55 years. They had no matrimonial affairs with the complainant and her husband. Efforts have been made to implicate the entire family of the husband and false allegations have been levelled against them. There is tendency on the part of the wives to implicate all the family members of the husband, who even do not know anything about the marriage or dowry. Their case is fully covered by categories (iii), (iv) and (vii), as spelled out in the guiding principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, who came present and contested the same. She pleaded in her reply that the petitioners are in a dominating position in the family and they took active and dominated role at the time of marriage. They had been demanding dowry in consideration of marriage. Specific dowry articles were also entrusted to them, which are mentioned in the list attached with the complaint. The trial court applied its judicial mind before taking the cognizance of the offences and they were ordered to be summoned after a prima facie case was found against them.