BIMLA DEVI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Bimla Devi, mother-in-law and Samuel, father-in-law of Mst. Shamma Devi, complainant, through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seek quashment of the complaint for offences under Sections 405, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and summoning order Annexure P-2 of the Judicial Magistrate whereby the accused were summoned for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code only inter alia, on the ground of vagueness of the allegations against them.

(2.) THE brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the complainant Annexure P-1 is that the marriage of Mst. Shamma Devi, complainant, was solemnised with Suresh Kumar on November 5, 1986, at Chandigarh according to Christian religious rites and ceremonies. The parents of the complainant entrusted dowry articles, detailed in Annexure A appended with the complaint, to all the four accused including the present petitioners, husband and brother-in law of the complainant. The husband and in-laws of the complaint being not satisfied with the dowry started maltreating her from the very day of the marriage. The complainant gave birth to a son named, Robin, on September 15, 1987. All the accused started torturing and pressuring the complainant to fetch Rs. 10,000/- from her parents but she expressed her inability to do so due to the poverty of her parents. Ultimately, she was turned out from the matrimonial home on March 20, 1987, and since then she is residing with her parents at Chandigarh. The present petitioners and their co-accused have failed to return the dowry articles despite repeated demands and service of legal notice dated July 1, 1989, under registered cover which was returned with the report of refusal. Under these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint on August 16, 1989. The trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant as well as Mohinder Kumar (PW 2) summoned the husband and parents-in-law, that is, the present petitioners to face trial for the above referred offence but did not summon Anil Kumar, younger brother of the husband.

(3.) IN view of the factum that the present petitioners happen to be parents-in-law of the complainant and have not even averred in this petition that they had not attended the marriage of their son Suresh Kumar, there is no escape but to conclude that the articles of dowry mentioned in Annexure A appended with the complaint Annexure P-1 were handed over to the present petitioners as it is usual to entrust these articles to the parents of the bridegroom on the occasion of the marriage. Thus it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the case of the present petitioners is comparable with that of Anil Kumar, their son.