GUL AISA BEGHAM Vs. RAZIA BEGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed for quashing complaint No. 164/1 dated 7.10.2010 titled "Razia Begham vs. Mohd. Mazebul Rehman and others" under Sections 406, 498 -A, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") (Annexure P -1) and summoning order dated 25.2.2014 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that Razia Begham, complainant -respondent filed criminal complaint against her husband, mother -in -law (non -petitioners) and the petitioners who are the married sister -in -law, her husband and her in laws family members. As per case of the complainant, her marriage with accused Mohd. Mazebul Rehman was performed on 23.4.1998 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies at Thakur Ganj, Bihar and out of their wedlock, three children namely one son and two daughters were born. It is argued that entrustment of dowry articles, if any, took place at Thakur Ganj, Bihar and the respondent remained residing with her husband and his family in Bihar uptil the year 2008. It is not case of the complainant that during her long stay of 10 years in Bihar, whatever articles of stridhan were given to her, the same were not allowed to be used by her. It is further argued that even if any maltreatment or harassment was caused to the complainant in connection with demand of dowry during her stay in Bihar, the present petitioners can not be summoned for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 498 -A IPC by the Court at Ludhiana. The complainant has raised vague and omnibus allegations against all the accused in regard to misappropriation of articles of stridhan and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry or insufficient dowry. Petitioner No. 1 is the married sister -in -law of the complainant and her marriage was performed in the year 1995 prior to marriage of the complainant. She has nothing to do with marital affairs of the complainant who was staying in Bihar for about 10 years after her marriage in the year 1998. It is further argued that the petitioner, her husband and her in laws family members have been indicted in the crime with a view to make the net wider and involve maximum number of relatives of the husband. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 4 RCR(Cri) 45, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed being the result of an abuse and misuse of process of law.

(3.) COUNSEL has further submitted that the complainant along with her husband shifted to Ludhiana in the year 2008. There is no allegation in the complaint that the complainant along with her family had been residing with the petitioners. The allegations of the complainant in regard to occurrence dated 16.12.2009 neither finds corroboration from an independent source much less she being subject to any medical examination with regard to any injuries caused to her. She has not mentioned name of any respectable of the locality who intervened to save her from the accused persons.