SURINDER KUMAR Vs. BIHARI LAL BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surinder Kumar petitioner and others have moved this criminal miscellaneous u/S 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated 15-7-1990, Annexure PT, brought by Bihari Lal Bharti, respondent herein against the petitioners, u/ss 406/498A, T.P.C. and the sum-moning order dated 30-7-1990, Annexure P2, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, and the subsequent proceedings.

(2.) Saroj Kumar alias Baby daughter of the respondent was married to Surinder Kumar, Petitioner 1. Petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents, while petitioners 4 to 6 are his brothers and respondent 7 is his brothers wife. According to the allegations made in the impugned complaint, the marriage of Surinder Kumar with Saroj Kumari alias Baby was solemnised on 11-12-1987. The Barat consisted of 400/500 persons. On the demand of the petitioners, dowry worth Rs. 2,00,000/- was given by the respondent to his daughter. This was to be meant to be IstriDhan of Saroj Kumari and was to be entrusted to her on reaching her matrimonial home. The details of the dowry items read as under the complainant in the presence of the witnesses, handed over the scooter Bajaj Chetak and one V.C.P. to Surinder Kumar accused. Mohinder Singh was given one silver set and silvers Pajebs in a packed box after showing the same to him. Accused No.3 Sheela and accused No.1 to 6 and 9 to TI were given golden ornaments. Accused No.4 Ashwani Kumar was given sofa-set, Dinning, Table and one Double Bed. Accused No. 5 Rajesh Kumar was given one Freezer and Sewing Machine. Accused No.6 Manoj Kumar was given one colour television, one ceiling fan, and one cooler. Accused No.7, 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 were given electrical material, Beddings and utensils, as per the lists. Accused No.9 Was given one wall clock, one washing machine, two trunks and two attachi cases. Accused No. 10 Sital was given one dressing table, one big tin box. The accused received all these items in presence of witnesses and promised to hand over the said Istridhan to Saroj in their village Mallawala. The petitioners were, however, greedy persons, who, on reaching their house, started taunting Saroj Kumari and made demand for more dowry in cash. For this purpose, they started giving beatings to he. She was not allowed to utilise any item of stridhan. For securing a settlement of his daughter, the respondent gave two demand drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each, drawn on Canara Bank in the name of Mohinder Singh petitioner. Even after receiving this amount, the petitioners were not satisfied and they made further demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for opening a cloth shop in Delhi. They came up with fresh demands and maltreated her. On 4/5 occasions, she was turned out of her matrimonial house after giving beatings. On 1-4-1990, on receipt of information from Gurdial Singh, the respondent went to the house of the petitioners and found Saroj Kumari in a badly beaten condition. She told that all the accused-petitioners had given her merciless beating and they wanted to kill her. Petitioner 1 gave blows to her in the presence of the complainant. This matter was, however, compromised on 8-4-1990, she was brought to her parents house by all the accused and left her there. She told her father that she had been brought on the pretext that her father was ill. She, however, did not want to stay at her parents house and tried to catch hold of the window of the car, but she was given slaps and fists. She was ultimately left at her fathers place. On 29-4-1990, she was taken by her father and other respectables to prevail upon the accused for her resettlement, but they refused.

(3.) There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the impugned complaint, every effort has been made to implicate all the close relatives of the husband by making vague allegations about maltreatment meted out to her and giving of dowry. It is a fact of common knowledge that at the time of marriage, the articles of dowry like clothes and furniture are entrusted to some one on the side of the bridegrooms family. It is, however, unimaginable that the articles are distributed amongst the various relatives of the bridegroom. In order to throw a wide net in the complaint, an allegation has been made about the various dowry articles having been entrusted to different accused-persons. It is also difficult to imagine that at no stage, the dowry articles entrusted to various other relatives were demanded by Saroj Kumari. Whatever entrustment had been made, must have been made to the husband and his parents. I may also add that brothers and sisters of the husband hardly play any role in the affairs of the spouses. The allegations against petitioners 4/to 6, brothers of petitioner 1 and petitioner 7 who is wife of his brother have been made with the intention of dragging the entire family of Surinder Kumar for wreaking vengeance. In such a situation, the continuation of the impugned complaint against them amounts to abuse of process of the Court. I, accept the criminal miscellaneous on their behalf and quash the impugned complaint, the summoning order and all the subsequent proceedings qua them,