VINOD KUMAR GAHIR Vs. PAWAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAWAN Kumari daughter of Hari Ram Panesar of Sewak Colony, Patiala was married to Vinod Kumar Gahir on 14-4-1986 at Patiala according to Hindu rites. It has been alleged that Vinod Kumar Gahir, his parents Bant Ram Gahir, Vidya Devi and an, elder brother Madan Lal Gahir falsely represented that Vinod Kumar Gahir was an electrical engineer having done 4 years degree course and was employed as a Project Engineer. This alleged qualification was supplied by Madan Lal Gahir accused No. 4 elder brother of the husband in his own handwriting to the parents of the complainant and in reality it was found that Vinod Kumar Gahir was not at all a qualified engineer and had scarcely passed only Pre-engineering class. There are other allegations as well that from the very beginning the husband started nagging and taunting the complainant for not bringing one item or the other in dowry and she was maltreated and beaten with cruelty. On this complaint for offences under sections 420/406/498-A read with sections 120-B and 44 of the IPC the accused have been summoned by Shri N.I.S. Dhaliwal, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Patiala vide his order dated 6-8-1988. The present petition has been moved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the aforesaid complaint pending in the trial court be quashed because it has been instituted only to harass and humiliate and the allegations made in the complaint could not be considered sufficient prima facie to constitute any offence against any of the four accused.

(2.) IT has come to notice during the course of arguments as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant wife that the impugned order of summoning was challenged and the revision has been dismissed on 25-11-1988 by Shri A.B. Singh Wasu, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala after hearing the parties and by a speaking order.

(3.) HOWEVER , in short the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the allegations made were vague and a large number of relatives have been roped in and in this regard Anokh Singh and others v. Paramjit Kaur, 1990(1) Recent C.R. 497 has been referred to. In the aforesaid. case of district Faridkot one important objection was that two sisters of the husband were also implicated in the complaint and in that case it was held that the case could certainly proceed against the husband., Besides this, on behalf of the accused reliance has been placed on Jasbir Kaur and others v. Kamaljit Kaur, 1988(1) Recent C.R. 532 wherein it was observed that the allegations of entrustment should be clear, specific and unambiguous. In the case now in hand the distinguishing feature is that the complainant has attached an Annexure. This Annuxure has taken the shape of evidence when she herself appeared as a witness on oath in the trial court at Patiala. Some documents alleged to have been admitted by accused No. 4 are also stated to be on the record of the trial court. It has also been alleged that a Panchayat was convened and accused Nos. I and 2 had agreed to discharge the responsibility of entrustment. It is not to be seen here in this Court as to how and when the parents of the girl spent Rs. 90,000/- on this marriage as alleged in the complaint. The conclusion is that this is not the stage to interfere under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petition is dismissed. The parties shall appear in the trial court at Patiala on 9.8.1990.