KAMLESH KAUR Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Kamlesh Kaur (ex-wife of respondent No. 1 Shri Dharam Singh) has filed the instant petition against the orders dated 1.7.1999 and 26.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunagar at Jagadhri and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, respectively, vide which the complaint filed by her under Sections 406/34 IPC, was dismissed and the accused respondents were discharged.

(2.) IN the instant case, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with respondent No. 1 in the year 1983. Subsequently, some dispute arose between them. Respondent No. 1 filed a divorce petition against the petitioner and the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The matter was compromised between them and the petitioner received a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the maintenance proceedings and divorce was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant complaint under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegations that respondent No. 1 and his father respondent No. 2 herein had misappropriated the dowry articles given to them at the time of marriage. In this complaint, the respondents were summoned after the preliminary evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner produced only two witnesses in her pre-charge evidence. She examined herself as CW-2 and her father as CW-1.

(3.) THE order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. While dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, the revisional Court has observed that no specific averment was made in the complaint regarding the entrustment of the dowry articles allegedly given at the time of the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 nor any documentary evidence was led from which it could have been inferred that actually the alleged dowry articles were handed over to the respondents. Even there was no evidence to establish that any such articles were purchased by the petitioner or her father, and were given at the time of marriage. Regarding the limitation, the revisional Court has observed that as per the allegation, the demand of the entrustment of dowry articles was made only in the year 1985-86 and thereafter no such demand was made. Therefore, it was held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. It was also observed that the petitioner had already received Rs. 25,000/- as maintenance amount from respondent No. 1 and the said fact was admitted by her father while making statement as CW-1. It was further observed that no doubt the case in which the compromise was entered into, was under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but even the parties have comprised the matter and the said amount was received in lieu of the compromise of the entire matter. After taking into consideration all these facts, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.