HARMOHAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 10.7.2002, Annexure P-4 passed by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Patiala, vide which she has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the application moved by the prosecution.

(2.) THE facts required to be noticed for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner is the niece of mother-in-law of respondent No. 2 and is residing at Chandigarh in her own matrimonial home. Marriage between Respondent No. 2 and Ravinder Singh was solemnised on 1.5.2000 at Patiala. Soon after the marriage, some differences cropped up between the husband and the wife on account of which, they started living separately. However, respondent No. 2, while she was, admittedly, staying at her parents house, got the FIR registered against Ravinder Singh, the husband, Smt. Amarjit Kaur, the mother-in-law, Gagandeep Singh, cousin, one Jagdish Singh and the petitioner levelling general allegations of dowry and cruelty against them. A copy of FIR dated 15.8.2000 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It has been further alleged in the petition that investigation was, thereafter, conducted by the police and challan was presented against the aforementioned persons, but finding no allegation against the petitioner, she was put in column No. 2. The learned trial Magistrate framed charges against the aforementioned persons, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. Subsequently, after two years of the registration of the FIR, respondent No. 2 moved an application for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mentioning therein that her name figured in the FIR and consequently, the learned trial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.7.2002, on the basis of the statement of complainant-respondent No. 2, while appearing as PW-1 before him, wherein she pointed out the name of the petitioner specifically mentioned therein that she gave beating to her by participating in the commission of the crime, ordered to summon the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. It has been further averred in the petition that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally vague and frivolous. Finally, it has prayed that the order dated 10.7.2002, Annexure P-4 passed by the learned trial Magistrate be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.