JASWINDER PAL KAUR Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JASWINDER Pal Kaur filed a complaint against her husband Jaspal Singh, his parents Phangan Singh and Pritam Kaur, Sadar, Kotkapura and Gurmel Singh Head Constable for various offences. The averments made in the complaint were that she was married to Jaspal Singh on 21.1.1990 and her parents gave her sufficient dowry. Two months after the marriage accused Nos. 1 to 6 started demanding a scooter from her and she was given beating as she failed to bring the scooter from her parents. Her husband even tried to strangulate her with her Dupatta but she was saved by Iqbal Singh accused. In October, 1990 she was given beating and was turned out of the house. The dispute was, however, settled on the intervention of respectables and she started living with her in-laws. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 continued demanding scooter from her and she was maltreated. A Panchayat consisting of Kartar Singh, Nand Singh, Harbans Singh, Jagir Singh, Nazir Singh etc. came to the village of accused on 1.6.1991 to settle the dispute but the accused did not give up their demand for scooter and refused to keep the complainant at their house. Phangan Singh accused exhorted the other accused to teach a lesson to the Panchayat for coming without a scooter and Jaspal Singh gave Kulhari blow on the head of the complainant. Another injury was also caused on her foot. Accused Nos. 2 to 6 assaulted the Panchayat with Dangs and when the Panchayat went to Police Station, Sadar Kotkapura, to lodge a report, accused No. 8 head-constable incharge, Police Post, Harino, brought them to the Police Post, where Kashmir Singh inspector accused No. 7 was also called. Father of the complainant gave a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- to the police officials and then the Panchayat was allowed to go out at about 10.00 P.M. The matter was reported to the higher police authorities, but to no avail.

(2.) THE complainant made her own statement and examined eight other witnesses. After considering the preliminary evidence Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot found that a prima-facie case under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. was made out against Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant and he was summoned to face trial for these offences. The other accused were not summoned. Aggrieved by this order dated 20.4.1992 Jaswinder Pal Kaur filed a revision petition which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 397 CrPC. She has now filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the order Annexure P/1 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot and order Annexure P/2 whereby the revision was rejected.

(3.) IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant- petitioner made her own statement and examined seven witnesses in support of the allegations in the complaint. They had deposed that husband of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 1 to 5 demanded a scooter from her and treated her with cruelty due to non-compliance of their demand. They also threatened the panchayat and caused injuries with Kulhari to the petitioner. The members of the Panchayat were illegally detained by the police at the instance of respondents No. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 8 extorted Rs. 1,000/- from the father of the petitioner. So, prima-facie all the respondents were liable for various offences and it was not for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence recorded at the stage of summoning. At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate was mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he was only to be prima-facie satisfied whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It was not for him to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case. This contention of the learned counsel is valid but in the instant case the Magistrate has not discussed merits or demerits of the case. He has taken into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint and evidence led in the complaint in support of the allegations. He was right in holding that when the husband was raising a demand for scooter, there did not appear to be any reason to press that demand further by the other relatives of the husband who were not likely to use that scooter. Besides the demand of scooter there were no other allegations that the petitioner was maltreated for not fulfilling the demand for any other article. The averments regarding cruel treatment were specific so far as the husband was concerned. It did not appear reasonable that all the members of the family including ladies picked up dangs and assaulted the Panchayat which had come for reconciliation. The averments that the Panchayat was hauled up by the Head-Constable while they were going to Police Station, Kotkapura and then the Inspector was called to the police post at Harino and they extorted a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and then allowed the Panchayat to go were patently absurd and inherently improbable and the trial Court was justified in its conclusion that there was no ground for proceeding against the respondents. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.