NAVDEEP SINGH Vs. GULAB PREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of first complaint, Annexure P/1, dated 26th November, 1983 and the second complaint, Annexure P/2, dated 23rd August, 1985, filed by the complainant-respondent, as well as the charge framed. against the petitioners on 18-12-1987 in the two complaints.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are, that the marriage between the complainant and Navdeep Singh accused No. 1 was performed on 14th November, 1982 and after their marriage they lived together as husband and wife at Delhi. At the time of Thaka ceremony which was performed at the residence of the accused at New Delhi, the accused demanded Rs. 50. 000/- from the father of the complainant before the marriage, and, promised that they will not take furniture, trunks and utensils. The aforesaid amount was paid by the father of the complainant to the accused at the time of Shagun ceremony which was performed at the village of the complainant's father. At that time the accused are stated to have promised that they would not put any demand of dowry and would not put unnecessary burden on her father. The marriage of the complainant and Navdeep Singh accused were duly performed at Amritsar and the marriage party was provided proper accommodation. It was further alleged that at the time of the marriage the father of the complainant gave huge dowry to accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the use of the complainant as detailed in Annexure 'b'. The articles of dowry were displayed in the presence of the respectables, relatives of the complainant and co-villager of the complainant's father. After sometime husband of the complainant started maltreating her on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry at the time of marriage according to their status, and, all the accused started insulting the complainant in the presence of visitors and relatives, who, used to come to see the newly wedded wife. All the three accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000,00 for investment in their Dolphin Enterprises which they were running and also for purchase of plot for the complainant's husband. The complainant wrote about all these incidents to her father. Thereafter, she went to village Shanker to appear in her M. A. final examination. Later on, her husband flatly refused to take the complainant to her matrimonial home. The complainant and her parents went to Delhi, but, at that time the parents-in-law of the complainant demanded rupees one lakh and also payment for the purchase of plot as a pre-condition for any talk of rehabilitation. At that time the husband of the complainant had already left India. The complainant and her parents requested the parents of the husband for return of the articles of dowry, but, they refused to hand over those articles. While the first complaint was still pending, second complaint was filed by the complainant on identical facts. In the first complaint, the accused were summoned under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas, in the second complaint they were summoned under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the complaints were later on clubbed together, vide, order of the trial Magistrate dated August 21,1987. After recording pre-charse evidence, the learned trial Magistrate vide his impugned order dated 18th December, 1987, discharged the mother-in-law of the complainant Smt. Santosh Kaur, whereas, complainant's husband and her father-in-law were charged under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.