NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. KULWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 is the brother of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurdaspur against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned J. M. I. C took cognizance of the case, issued process under Section 498-A against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said order of taking of cognizance by the learned J. M. I. C. the present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the same.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G. S. Grewal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N. K. Banka, learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1 respectively and have gone through the record of the case.

(3.) A perusal of the complaint Annexure P/1 shows that it cannot be said that it is without any allegation. It is mentioned in the complaint that various valuable articles were given at the time of marriage and that the petitioners did not feel satisfied with the same and started taunting the-respondent No. l that the mother and brother of respondent No. 1 had not kept up their promise to give dowry articles as promised. She has also mentioned that after 4/5 months of the marriage, the petitioners started pressing the complainant-respondent No. 1 either to bring a car or cash amount for the purchase of the car because the dowry articles given to them were not to the tune of their status. It is also mentioned in the complaint that because respondent No. 1 did not move to the desired direction, all the petitioners started humiliating and beating the respondent to coerce her to yield to their demands. Ultimately, the mother and brother of respondent No. 1 promised to purchase a second hand Maruti car for the petitioners if they stopped humiliating and beating respondent No. 1 and requested for a time of (sic) months but the behaviour of the petitioners did not undergo any change and they kept thrashing and harassing the complainant regularly with the result of which the respondent got affected her eye-sight and health adversely and she grew too weak to walk.