ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 21.3.2017, summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial in Case No. 190/2014 dated 21.8.2014 titled ' State v. Surinder Kaur and others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that on 11.11.2013, the complainant- respondent No.2 made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Jalandhar, against as many as 12 persons, stating that marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2 was solemnized with Chinderpal in the year 2005, out of which wedlock a son was born. It was alleged that her husband had gone abroad and for the last three years neither did he send any money to her nor did ever phone her up. Therefore, she is completely dependent upon her parents for maintenance of herself and her minor son. It was alleged that the accused mentioned in the complaint had been harassing and beatings her after her marriage as they were forcibly demanding divorce from her. It was stated in the complaint that she wants to live with her husband in her matrimonial home and sought help to bring her husband back from abroad or she be taken by her husband along with him or her expenses to be met. After investigation, FIR No. 33 dated 26.3.2014 under Section 498-A, IPC was registered against the husband of the complainant, namely Chinderpal and his two sisters, namely Manjit Kaur and Surinder Kaur. After presentation of challan, charges were framed and trial started. After statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the petitioners as well as other accused, namely Rahul and Ajay, which was allowed by impugned order dated 21.3.2017, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since there is not even an iota of evidence on the record to hold the petitioners guilty of the offences under Section 498-A, IPC. Rather the sequence of events would reflect that the present case is an classic example of sheer misuse of process of law. It is argued that initially when the complaint was lodged, the complainant had made allegations of harassment, beatings and torture against as many as 12 persons and after investigation, the police registered the FIR qua three persons only i.e. husband and his two sisters. It is further submitted that a perusal of the statement so made by the complainant would reflect that no demand of dowry was ever made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are nephews of the husband of the complainant, whose father has expired and they had nothing to do with the day-to-day family affair of the complainant and her husband and, therefore, question of harassment, torture or beatings by the petitioners to the complainant does not arise at all. In fact, the petitioners along with their family had been residing separately prior to the marriage of the complainant with Chinderpal and, therefore, the question of harassment, beatings or subjecting the complainant to cruelty by the petitioners does not arise at all. It is further submitted that it is purely a dispute of matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband and the petitioners have been unnecessarily dragged into this dispute. The statement of the complainant herself and the evidence led does not constitute the ingredients of commission of offence under Section 498-A, IPC qua the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment rendered in Hardeep Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and others , 2014 AIR(SC) 1400 in support of his contentions.