BIMLA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM . 1749/2003 : Miscellaneous application is allowed. Copy of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Jind dated 5.6.2001, whereby decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the husband, is taken on record. CRM. 1484-M/2001 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint dated 12.7.1999 filed under Sections 406/498-A/506 and 329 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been prayed that all consequent proceedings arising therefrom be also quashed including the summoning order, Annexure P-2 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar.

(2.) THE present complaint has been filed by the brother of Kiran Devi, who was married with Jagdish son of Balli Ram on 11.4.1995. It is stated in the complaint, Annexure P-1 that a sum of rupees five lacs was spent on the marriage and at the time of marriage, various jewellery items as well as refrigerator, T.V. and other house-hold goods were given to Kiran Devi. However, despite this, the husband of Kiran Devi along with the petitioners who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, and brother Subhash as well as his wife Santosh started harassing Kiran Devi. She was turned out of her matrimonial house as she failed to satisfy the accused by bringing more dowry. A Maruti car and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- are allegedly to have been demanded from Kiran Devi by the accused. After recording preliminary evidence, the leaned Judicial Magistrate, Hisar vide his order dated 31.10.2000 summoned the petitioners along with their son Jagdish, husband of Kiran Devi as well as his other son Subhash and his wife Santosh. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IN the present case also, a perusal of the complaint as well as the summoning order reveals that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. The allegations are general in nature. It is not mentioned as to which articles of dowry were entrusted to which of the accused. In these circumstances, it is held that the allegations in the complaint, Annexure P-1 are an abuse of the process of the court. Moreover, the case of the petitioners is fully covered with the decision in Tej Kaur's case (supra) and Hardial Singh's case (supra). Consequently, the complaint, Annexure P-1 as well as the summoning order, Annexure P-2 are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.