HARJINDER KAUR Vs. TEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the complaint filed, by Harjinder Kaur, the present petitioner, against her husband Sukhwinder Singh as well as mother-in-law, brother and sister-in-law for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the trial Court vide, its order dated 5-10-1988, after recording preliminary evidence, summoned Sukhwinder Singh, husband of the petitioner only to face trial for offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code as the allegations of the complainant and other witnesses only warranted so.

(2.) BEING aggrieved against the said order, the complainant has filed the present revision petition. None has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-petitioner although this petition was taken up at 3 p. m. today. Under these circumstances, there is no option but to dispose it of after examining the file with the help of the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) I have gone through the complaint as well the impugned order of the trial Court. The allegations of entrustment of dowry at the time of marriage to all the accused including the one who were not summoned are vague as it is stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to all the five accused. The matter does not rest here as it is averred that Sukhwinder Singh, husband of the petitioner, had remarried. Thus, misappropriation of the dowry articles could be attributed only to the husband or the alleged second wife of the husband and not to other relations of the husband who may be residing jointly with the husband. Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the trial Court has committed any illegality by not summoning the remaining accused than the husband.