ANJU BALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are sisters while petitioner No. 3 is brother of Subhash Kataria and petitioner No. 2 is wife of petitioner No. 3. They seek quashing of order dated 1.8.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, vide which they have been summoned to face trial under Sections 406, 498A IPC on the application moved by the complainant under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that complainant Sonia Arora was married to Subhash Kataria in the year 1996. She was earlier married to one Hardev Kumar Arora and their marriage was dissolved from the Queens Bench, Alberta on 9.4.1996. It is pleaded that marriage between the parties was a simple arrangement and no dowry article was given at the time of marriage. After 10 days of marriage Sonia Arora left for Canada and thereafter she applied for migration of her husband Subhash Kataria, who joined her in Canada. Sometime thereafter, relations between the parties became strained and matrimonial dispute arising between them, was referred to Canadian Police. Complainant Sonia Arora came to India and demanded a share in the shop jointly owned by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. On their refusal, she lodged a complaint against all the family members under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The Police after investigation, presented the challan against the husband-Subhash Kataria, father-in-law-Ram Pal Kataria and mother-in-law-Satya Rani and the present petitioners were kept in column No. 2. While forming the opinion with regard to innocence of petitioners, the police took note of the statement made by Sonia Arora on 7.12.1998 in the Court of Shri J.K. Mattoo, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, to the effect that she did not wish to proceed against the present petitioners and accordingly, the challan was presented against the other three accused, namely, Subhash Kataria, Ram Pal Kataria and Satya Rani. However, after presentation of challan, the complainant appeared in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.12.2000 and deposed against all the petitioners including the other co-accused. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the petitioners to face trial along with other co-accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and summoned the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 1.8.2003.

(3.) IN her reply, respondent No. 2 has stated that she had submitted an application for registration of case, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, which was marked to ASI-Kashmir Kaur, who took a fortnight to conclude the inquiry. Since the complainant could not wait indefinitely as she had to return to Canada, she filed a criminal complaint against the accused on 2.12.1998 and confronting the usual difficulty in effecting service on all the accused, made a statement on 7.12.1998 that she did not wish to proceed against the present petitioners, who were arrayed as accused No. 4 to 7 in the complaint. She had to catch a flight on 13.12.1998. However, the police registered the FIR on 6.12.1998, but incorporated the report of Kashmir Kaur, ASI, who had exonerated the petitioners. She challenged the action of the investigating agency by filing Crl. Misc. No. 23595-M of 1999. Thereafter she was examined as prosecution witnesses in the State case on 18.12.2000 where she testified with regard to the complicity of all the accused including the present petitioners and thereafter, learned Public Prosecutor moved an application for summoning the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in view of the statement made by the complainant, petitioners have been rightly summoned under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code and this does not amount to abuse of process of the Court. It is argued that the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC are clearly made out against the petitioners.