PRITBIR SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRITBIR Singh, his wife Raghbir Kaur and his daughter Smt. Kiranjot petitioners have come up in his petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint, dated 27th March, 1992 (Annexure P1) under Sections 406, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AS per averments made in the complaint, Balwinder Kaur was married to Jaskaran Singh 9 years earlier. At the time of the marriage the parents of he complainant gave dowry articles worth lacs of rupees details of which are given in annexure A attached with the complaint. That these dowry articles were entrusted to all the accused persons by the parents of the complainant with a direction that the same be handed over to the complainant and the accused were bound to return the same to the complainant on demand. That about 1 year 9 months prior to the filing of the complainant, the complainant alongwith her daughter aged about 6/7 years was turned out of the house by the accused at about midnight and she had to spend night outside the house. She had been warned to return only if her parents gave car, bus and money for purchase of a house. Threat was also given that in case she returned without meeting these demands she shall either be shot dead or burnt to death. The complainant conveyed all these facts to her parents. During her stay at her in-law's house the complainant had been given beatings by all the accused persons and other maltreatment was also given to her. Articles of istridhan were not handed over to her on demand. Again on 9th July, 1991, the father of the complainant alongwith others went to prevail upon the accused to rehabilitate the complainant but the same was refused and even demand for return of the dowry was not acceded to.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has urged that as per the averments made in the petition, the allegation of entrustment of the articles to all the accused is vague statement and it has not been specified if any specific article had been entrusted to any individual accused. He also urged that the marriage was solemnised 9 years earlier and if there was any dispute about the use of the articles given at the time of the marriage that dispute was between the husband and the wife and the present petitioner, who have been arrayed as accused No. 2 to 4, had no occasion to use the same. He has also challenged the complaint Annexure P1 on the basis of jurisdiction so far as offence under Section 498A, of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.