SUNITA RANI Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) the petitioners seek the quashing of a criminal complaint (annexure P1) and the order dated 18.4.1992 of summoning them as accused (annexure P2), as being illegal. Respondent Smt. Ranjit Kaur filed the said criminal complaint against the petitioners alleging that she was married with Harinder Pal son of Shri Sardar Chand on 15.1.1990 at Ludhiana according to the Sikh religion and rites. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Sunita Rani is the sister of Harinder Pal and is married with petitioner No. 2 Joginder Singh. Petitioners reside at Purani Khalasi Line, House No. OLL 143, Ferozepur Cantt. In the marriage of Harinder Pal, his parents Sardar Chand and Smt. Saroj Kanta had also participated. After marriage the respondent came to live with her husband in Manglore Puri in a house consisting of two rooms. Apart from the respondent Smt. Ranjit Kaur and her husband Harinder Pal, the parents-in-law and two brothers-in-law of the respondent-wife also resided in the said house at Manglore Puri. It was alleged that the petitioners, Harinder Pal and his parents were dissatisfied with the dowry given at that time of the marriage of the respondent and these persons demanded more dowry. They dowry which articles which were given to the respondent at the time of her marriage were entrusted to the petitioners and other accused persons including her husband, his brothers and his parents and they promised to return on demand these dowry items to the respondent-wife Smt. Ranjit Kaur. It is alleged that the father of the respondent/complainant had spent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the marriage aforesaid which was beyond their reach and they performed the marriage in decent manner in order to satisfy the demands regarding dowry of the accused persons. The respondent alleged in the complaint that after barely two months of the marriage she was tortured by her parents-in-law and her husband for bringing less dowry. The demanded more items in dowry included a motor-cycle, a gold ring and cash and forced her to convey their demands for being fulfilled, to her parents. The father of the respondent-wife reluctantly paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash by selling some machines in order to see his daughter happy in her matrimonial house. The torture of the resondent-wife, however, continued and she was living under constant apprehension of danger to her life at the hands of the accused persons. The parents of the respondent-wife were unable to satisfy the ever-increasing demands for more dowry of the accused persons. The accused persons denied even the two square meals to the respondent-wife and on the other hand they forced her to work hard in the house and to do all household work. The accused persons are also alleged to have given physical beating to the respondent who was even turned out of the matrimonial house in bare three clothes in the month of January 1991. The respondent came to reside with her parents. Subsequently on 14.4.1991, the accused persons came to the house of the father of the respondent-wife and took her with them and at that the time she took four pairs of clothes and gold earrings. At that time the accused persons gave a written note admitting about the demand of dowry and accepting more dowry from the parents of the respondent. The accused persons, however, did not mend themselves and again stated torturing the respondent. On 4.12.1991 the husband of the respondent- wife under the influence of liquor and at the instigation of other accused kicked his wife (respondent) out of the matrimonial home in the clothes she was wearing at that time. She had been openly threatened by the accused that she would be killed if she dared to return to their house without bringing the dowry demanded by the accused persons. It has been further alleged that the accused persons retained with them the dowry items which were entrusted to them. A Panchayat was convened by the parents of the respondent and in the Panchayat the accused persons flatly refused to accept the respondent in their house and also refused to hand over the dowry items that were entrusted to them.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana after examining the complainant wife as P.W. 1 and her witnesses Kehar Singh, P.W. 2, Badri Nath, P.W. 3 and Sohan Singh, P.W. 4 ordered for the summoning of the opposite parties of the complaint as accused under Sections 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued to the respondent who put in appearance and filed reply by way of her affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and alleging that the controversy regarding the facts can be gone into only at the time of the trial of the case and at this stage no enquiry can be held regarding the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint had been described to be correct on facts and the same allegations have been repeated in the reply regarding the demand of dowry and harassment and torture for the sake of more dowry. She has defended the summoning order as being in accordance with the material paced on record and in accordance with the provisions of law. It has also been denied that the petitioners are residing with their parents at Ferozepur. The respondent has maintained her stand that the petitioners are in fact residing with the family of her husband. The complaint has been described as legal and valid.