AMRIT LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brothers and sister of Madan Lal have come forward with the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the complaint (Annexure P -1) and the summoning order dated 26.5.1992 (Annexure P -2) for the offences under Sections 498 -A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

(2.) AMRIT Lal Sharma, Janak Raj Sharma are the brothers and Neelam is a married sister of Madan Lal. The aforesaid Madan Lal was married to Arna Kumari daughter of Sat Pal Sharma respondent No. 2 on 27.1.1990. There is one son aged 11 years and a daughter aged 8 years out of the aforesaid wedlock. Madan Lal Sharma the petitioner has alleged that he had been living at Mohali, Patiala and Chandigarh for the last more than 13 years because he is a Government employee. Similarly, Janak Raj Sharma has alleged that he is employed in the N.C.C. and remained posted at Patiala, Nangal etc. Petitioner No. 3 Neelam has also alleged that she was married in February, 1981 and thereafter, she had been living in village Dhandhari, District Fatehgarh Sahib with her husband who is in business. It has also been alleged on behalf of these petitioners that there is no specific allegation that any particular item of so -called dowry was entrusted to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P -3 copy of ration card which shows that Janak Raj had been residing at Patiala. Similarly, the certificates Annexures P -5, P -6 and P -7 show that the other two petitioners had also been living at far off places like Chanarthal in Fatehgarh Sahib.

(3.) THOUGH a reply dated 2.10.1993 has been placed on behalf of the respondent complainant yet it does not contain any specific mode or mention how and when the articles of dowry much less what were those articles find mention in the reply. The conclusion is that it is a case where the two brothers and a married sister of the husband have been implicated maliciously. The present petition succeeds and the impugned summoning order (Annexure P -2) is hereby quashed qua the three petitioners. Petition allowed.