SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') challenges the order dated 28.8.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala directing the S.H.O. of Police Station Samrala directing the S.H.O. of Police State Samrala to submit his report after investigation on or before 6.1.2004.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed a complaint against respondents Nos. 1 to 5 levelling allegations of demand of dowry and misappropriation of Istri Dhan, It was further alleged that the allegations constituted commission of offences under Sections 406/498A read with Section 34 IPC. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1, Kulwinder Singh was married to her by performing Anand Karaj ceremony at Samrala according to Sikh rites on 28.9.1992. Both of them started living as husband and wife at matrimonial home at Gali No. 7, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana. The articles forming part of Istri dhan were entrusted to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is further alleged that she was turned out of the matrimonial home in three clothes in December, 1993 when she was carrying two months old pregnancy. On 9.7.1994 a male child was born to the petitioner-complainant. However, she was taken back to the matrimonial home in 1994. Further, allegations of demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- were made for reconstruction of the house by the respondents. The petitioner-complainant has alleged that she has been turned out of the matrimonial home time and again. The matter was reported to the police but the police did not entertain the complaint and advised the petitioner- complainant to approach the Court. On 7.8.2001, she file a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate who registered the complaint and adjourned the same for 6.9.2001 for recording of preliminary evidence of the petitioner-complainant. Statements of four persons including the petitioner- complainant have been recorded and the preliminary evidence was closed. On 29.8.2003, the Magistrate passed the following order :

(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and am of the view that the order passed by the Magistrate does not suffer from any jurisdictional, procedural or any other legal error. Under Section 202 of the Code, the issuance of process can be postponed by the Magistrate and there is ample power given to him to direct investigation to be made by the police officer. Section 202 of the Code reads as under :