NIRMALJIT KAUR Vs. SH. ATMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT Annexure P 1. was filed by Atma Ram against his daughter-in-law, her parents, brother and one Harinderpal Singh alias Bawa-under section 420 read with section 120-B/109 of the Indian Penal Code for Rajpal Singh accused No. 2 having cheated him of a sum of Rs. 48,500/- in conspiracy with remaining four accused on the pretext of buying 12 bighas of land for him at Dehradun adjacent to his own land at that place that there was, in fact, no intention to purchase the land white obtaining money nor was the land aforesaid ever purchased with the amount aforesaid and that Rajpal Singh, in fact, converted the amount to his own use. After recording preliminary evidence learned trial Court dismissed the Complaint vide order Annexure P 6 dated November 21, 1988. In Criminal Revision No. 2 filed on 4th January, 1989 learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide his impugned judgment Annexure P. 7 dated 13th January, 1989 accepted the revision, set aside the order of the learned trial court dated 21st November, 1988 and remanded back the case to the learned trial court for proceeding further therewith in accordance with law. Upon rehearing after recording additional evidence, learned trial court ordered summoning of accused No. 1 and 2 before it under sections 420, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code vide its order Annexure P. 8 dated 12th April, 1989.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved therefrom both the summoned accused daughter-in-law and her father have filed Cri. Misc No. 5943-M of 1989 in this Court for quashing complaint Annexure P. 1 and the summoning order Annexure P. 3 on the grounds that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed as a counter blast to the matrimonial litigation instituted by the daughter-in-law, that the order Annexure P. I dated 13th January, 1989 is wholly illegal and that while summoning the petitioners learned trial court has in fact reviewed its own earlier order Annexure P.6 dated 21.11.1988; which is legally not permissible.

(3.) WITH reference to the observations made in Gantoli v. Kalwa Ram, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 398; Om Parkash Mehra v. Karam Singh, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 586 and Devendra Dutt and others v. State and others, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 50; it between asserted that the complaint Annexure P. 1 having been filed by father or the bridegroom as a counter blast to matrimonial proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law, is obviously an abuse of the process of the court and therefore, calls for being quashed. None of the authorities cited has any bearing on the point in controversy before this Court. Truth or falsity of the allegations made in the complaint would be decided by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence adduced before it.