HARJINDER KAUR Vs. NACHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 14th December, 1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, by which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the accused were discharged.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant Smt. Harjinder Kaur brought complaint under Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Sections 406, 498-A, and 120-B Indian Penal code alleging that she was married with accused Nachhattar Singh on 11-5-1986 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage of the complainant, articles of dowry as mentioned in the list annexure A-1 were given by the parents of the complainant as dowry and the same were entrusted to accused Nachhattar Singh, Kartar Singh and Nasib Kaur last two having not been summoned in the complaint, though the complaint was filed against them and the keys were handed over to said Kartar Singh and Nasib Kaur. The articles of dowry are Istridhan of the complaint and the accused are holding the same as trustees but they have not returned the same to the complainant. From the very beginning of the marriage accused ill-treated the complainant and gave out that she had brought less dowry and they made demand of more dowry. Many times the complainant was given beatings. In the month of September, 1986 accused Nachhattar Singh got an intimation that the scooter booked by him with M/s. Bedi Electronic and Automobiles near Jagraon Bridge, Ludhiana was to be collected and since then the accused started pressing the complainant to bring more money from her father for the purchase of a scooter. The complainant wrote her plight to her parents vide letter dated 15-10-1986. The complainant communicated the demand of Rs. 20,000/- made by the accused for the purchase of the scooter vide said letter. Joginder Singh maternal uncle of Nasib Singh who also was arrayed as accused and who has not been summoned also pressed the complainant for bringing the amount of Rs. 20,000/- failing which he threatened to get accused Nachhattar Singh remarried. In that way, it is alleged that the accused committed offences under Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Sections 406, 498-A and 120 Indian Penal Code. It is further averred that in the end of June, 1989 the complainant, her father, her uncle Pritam Singh, Tej Kaur w/o Jai singh, Ajmer singh son of Ganga Singh and Gurnam Singh son of Gokal Singh visited the house of the accused and the complainant in the presence of the said persons asked for the return of the dowry articles, but accused Nachhattar Singh, Kartar Singh and Nasib Kaur refused to return the same. The complainant again demanded the articles of dowry on 10-7-1989 at Khanna when accused Nachhattar Singh accompanied by Kartar Singh and Nasib Kaur had come there to appear in a cae but they refused to deliver back the same and that the accused raised a demand of Rs. 20,000/- in order to rehabilitate the complainant. In this way, it is alleged that the accused in preconcert have committed the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) HARJINDER Kaur complainant has examined besides herself as PW-1, Ajmer Singh PW-2, Gurnam Singh PW-3 and Amar Singh PW-4.