ATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint (Annexure P.1) and the consequent summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, (Annexure P.2) are sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE impugned complaint dated July 29, 1985 has been filed by respondent No. 2 Mit Singh against the petitioners under Section 406 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant's daughter Surinder Kaur was married to the third petitioner Angrez Singh. Dowry articles given to the bride at the time of marriage were entrusted to the petitioners. The first two petitions Attar Singh and Kartar Kaur are parents and petitioners Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Sucha Singh and Harmit Singh are brothers of the third petitioner Angrez Singh. It is stated that the bride stayed only for two or three days in the husband's house and eversince then she is living with her parents. It is alleged that the petitioners have refused to return the dowry articles. After filing of the complaint preliminary evidence was recorded by the trial Magistrate. In the light of the allegations made in the complaint and the preliminary evidence the petitioners were summoned by the Magistrate under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, vide the impugned order (Annexure P.2).

(3.) THE complaint is sought to be quashed on the ground that it contains false allegations. On this ground, at this stage, the complaint cannot be quashed in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 75 : 1987(1) C.L.R. 1 It is held in this judgment that the question to be determined by the Court at the stage of summoning the accused is whether on the basis of allegations in the complaint, without adding or subtracting anything, a cognizable offence is made out. The question at this stage is not whether there was any truth in the allegations.