ASHA DEVI Vs. SUMAN LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Asha Devi is the married sister of Devinder Kumar respondent No. 2, and Sohan Lal is her husband. Similarly Smt. Saroj Rani is the sister of Devinder Kumar respondent No. 2 and Jaswant Singh petitioner No. 4 is her husband and all the four petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashment of the complaint as well as summoning order vis-a-vis them when they weresummoned by the Magistrate under Section 406 IPC vide order dated 10-6-1996 on the basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Suman Lata, respondent No. 1 under Section 406 and 498-A read with Section 34-IPC.

(2.) The case set up by respondent No. 1 in brief in para No. 2 of her complaint at one stage was that at the time of her marriage, her parents and relatives gave articles in the shape of gifts as per Annexure-A forming part of the complaint and these articles of gifts constituted of her Shtridhan and said list was read over to all the accused including the petitioners who attended the marriage. Out of the articles mentioned in the list Annexure-A, ornaments except ear-rings were entrusted to accused No. 3, 4 and 6 namely Kanta, Asha and Saroj and other ornaments were entrusted to accused No. 1, 2, 5 and 7. It has further been alleged by the complainant that the accused persons were merely trustees and custodians of Shtridhan and they were legally and morally bound to return the said articles and gifts on demand as it was clearly made to them at the time of entrustment. So much so all the accused took these articles to village Rampur Sahni whereas the ownership of the same was that of the complainant. In para No. 5 of the complaint, Smt. Suman Lata made her position clear by stating that on 10-10-94 accused No. 2 and 3 gave her beating and turned her out from the house alongwith baby in three wearing apparells and kept the articles mentioned in the list Annexure-A. This averment made by the complainant clearly indicates that entrustment if any was vis-a-vis accused No. 2 and 7 who are not petitioners before me. A reading of paras No. 6 and 7 of the said complaint further makes it clear that on 11-2-1996 the complainant and her father in the presence of one Mahan Singh member of panchayat went to village Rampur Sahni and demanded Shtridhan as detailed in Annexure-A of the complaint but he refused to hand over the same. Rather they threatened them. Thus the above would show that the entrustment if any was vis-a-vis accused No. 1 to 3 namely Tilak Singh, Davinder Kumar and Smt. Kanta who are not party to this petition and there is no specific averment with regard to the entrustment of the dowry articles/Shtridhan to the present four petitioners. This part of the complaint has been dealt with by the learned Magistrate in para No. 3 of the impugned order by stating as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the order dated 10-6-96 does not stand in the way of the present petitioners in invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by this Court. On the contrary Shri Sandeep Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent submit that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 Cri LJ 3779 : (AIR 1992 SC 2206), K. K. Mathew v. State of Kerala this Court should not and cannot invoke powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and the only course left to the petitioner is to approach the Magistrate under Section 345 Cr. P.C. and convince him that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law and that it was oppressive and that no offence was made out and the learned Magistrate will be competent to recall his order.