MEHAR CHAND Vs. ROSHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEHAR Chand and three others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint (Annexure P-1) summoning order dated 21-4-1992 (Annexure-P-2) and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar District Ferozepur.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Roshni respondent was married to Mehar Chand, petitioner about two years prior to the filing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was spent on her marriage and she was given all the necessary articles of dowry The petitioners were, however not satisfied with the dowry and often taunted her and she was also subjected to beating by the petitioners, Roop Ram, Samitra. Rani, wife of Roop Ram as well as by Lachhmi sister of Mehar Chand. The respondent out of fear visited her father and brought Rs. 10,000/- twice for the petitioners. The petitioners were still not satisfied and treated her in a cruel, manner. On the death of her mother which took place tea months prior to the filing of the complaint, she was asked to bring all the ornaments of her mother and not to return till she complied with the wishes of the petitioners. The respondent did not agree to bring the ornaments, at which she was again subjected to beating. Fifteen days prior to the filing of the complaint she was given beating and was administered insecticide, when she became unconscious she was taken to a private doctor and thereafter, she was illegally detained. When her parents learnt about her illegal detention, her father got her released with the help of the police of Police Station, Chuyan Sarwar. The petitioners treated the respondent with such cruelty that she thought Of committing suicide. On these allegations, I complaint, (Annexure P-1) was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar and after recording preliminary evidence the trial Court passed order (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial for an offence under Section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners assailed the complaint and impugned order on the ground that the allegations made out in the complaint did not disclose any offence. There was no specific allegation as to how the petitioners jointly made demand for more dowry. It was also, not mentioned as to when the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the petitioners. In fact the respondent wanted that her husband Mehar Chand should reside at her parental house and when be refused to do so a false complaint was filed to harass him and his other relatives. It was further averred that the trial court did not property apply its mind on the allegations forming basis of the complaint and no material on record was referred, to find out whether a prima facie case was made out for proceeding" against the petitioners under Section 4987A of the Indian Penal Code. The order (Annexure P-2) was a non-speaking order and the petitioners were being put to trial for an offence for which no foundation has been laid down in the complaint itself.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.L. Aneja, the learned counsel for the petitioners.