KRISHNA DEVI Vs. RAJNI BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Devi mother-in-law and Sanjeev Kumar husband of Rajni Bala-respondent have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under the Provisions of Section 482 Cr.C.P. for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 and summoning order under Section 406 I.P.C. Annexure P/2 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) RAJNI Bala respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and also Krishan Lal father and Aarti sister of Sanjeev Kumar for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, I.P.C. Briefly stated the allegations in the complaint were that Rajni Bala was married to Sanjeev Kumar on 11.12.1988 at Ambala Cantt. Two days after the marriage the accused named in the complaint, came to Ludhiana where they were entrusted with dowry articles detailed in the complaint, with the understanding that the same will be handed over to the complainant on reaching her matrimonial home. Instead of giving the articles to the complainant the accused started taunting her that marriage was not performed according to their wishes and dowry articles were not according to their status. They maltreated the complainant and harassed her and started demanding V.C.R. and scooter. When father of the complainant retired from service in December, 1990, he got Rs. two lacs as retirement benefits and the accused started pressurizing the complainant to demand Rs. one lac from her father for construction of a house. The complainant could not oblige the accused and their behaviour towards her became more cruel. She was ultimately turned out of the house. When she demanded her dowry articles in the presence of the panchayat, the accused refused to return the same and misappropriated those articles.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention was that no article of dowry was entrusted at Ludhiana. The marriage took place at Ambala and the allegations that two days after the marriage dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Ludhiana were not probable. There was no occasion for the petitioners to go to Ludhiana for simply collecting the dowry articles. It was further contended that a petition for dissolution of marriage had been filed by petitioner No. 2 against the respondent on the ground of cruelty at Ambala on 17.9.1991 and as a counter-blast to that petition the respondent filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate at Ludhiana and then to harass the petitioners, the present complaint was filed on false allegations.