LAWS(P&H)-1987-4-66

BAL KISHAN S Vs. POONAM VERMA

Decided On April 10, 1987
Bal Kishan S Appellant
V/S
Poonam Verma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint (Annexure P.1) filed by the respondent against them along with her husband, namely, Vijay Kumar, under Sections 405/406, I.P.C. and the summoning order, Annexure P.2, passed by the Judicial Magistrate on August 11, 1986, as a consequence of that. Briefly the allegations levelled against them in the complaint are that she was married to Vijay Kumar on May 24, 1982 and at that time her parents gave a number of articles (details are mentioned therein) to Vijay Kumar and his parents by way of dowry and then some time later the accused (meaning thereby all the petitioners and her husband) turned her out and also declined to return the articles of dowry. After examining some evidence under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, the trial Magistrate passed the impugned order of summoning on August 11, 1986.

(2.) IT is alleged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the complaint that the petitioners are in any way guilty of breach of trust, cannot reasonably be accepted. Firstly, there is no specific allegation of any entrustment of any dowry article to them and secondly, most of the petitioners, i.e., Vinod Kumar, Veena, Neena and Aneeta, i.e., brother and sisters of the husband, were even minors at the time of the said marriage on May 24, 1982. According to the learned Counsel these persons neither received any article of dowry nor refused to return the same.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case has been made out against the petitioners. A bare perusal of the complaint indicates that no specific allegation about the entrustment of any specific article to any of the petitioners has been made therein. Only a bald assertion that "the accused persons turned her out only in three worn clothes and kept the articles in their custody while this property solely belongs to her" has been made in the complaint. As against his qua the husband, i.e., Vijayu Kumar, it has specifically been alleged as to what properties were entrusted to him and what he had retained at the time of turning her out of the house. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have appreciated the status of the two sets of the accused, i.e., the husband and his parents and other relations. Similarly in her statement as P.W.1, she does not make any categorical statement about the entrustment of any particular property to any of the petitioners. I am, therefore, satisfied that qua these petitioners the proceedings in question have been launched simply to misuse the process of the Court. I, therefore, quash the complaint and the summoning order, Annexure P.1 and P.2, respectively, so far as these relate to the petitioners. Order accordingly.