RAJ KUMAR Vs. RAM MURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar accused-petitioner has filed this petition under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint (Annexure P2) and the order dated 10.5.1991 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura (Annexure P2) and the order dated 22.2.1992 (P3) of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the summoning order inter-alia on the ground that dismissal of the application for the grant of permission to prosecute the petitioner under section 8 A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 substituted by the Punjab Dowry Prohibition, Punjab Amendment Act. No. 26 of 1976 would operate as bar to the subsequent prosecution of the petitioner for offence under section 406 read with Section 34 IPC besides on the ground of the complaint being barred by limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as vagueness of the allegations.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the complainant's case relevant for the disposal of this petition as contained in the complaint (Annexure P2) are that Mst. Ram Murti complainant was married with Raj Kumar accused respondent on 5.6.1979 at village Batwal Tehsil Naraingarh. The parents and other relations of the complainant gave dowry articles and other gifts at the time of solemnization of her marriage. She has given list of these articles in Annexure A. She further maintained that these articles were handed over to the accused and formed part of Istri Dhan. She further maintained thatthe articles mentioned in the Annexure were entrusted soon after marriage and that she was tuned out from her matrimonial home in three clothes on 15.7.1985. On these allegations she had filed complaint on 21.6.1987 (Annexure P2) against her husband and father-in-law Ram Sarup for offence punishable under Section 406/34 IPC. The trial Court vide order dated 10.4.1991 framed a charge under Section 406 IPC against Raj Kumar petitioner only as the other co-accused Ram Sarup had died during the pendency of these proceedings. The petitioner being aggrieved against that order went in revision, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 27.2.1992. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.