RAJBIR SINGH Vs. SAROJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by way of this petition seek quashing of complaint dated 23.1.1990, Annexure P-1, summoning order dated 4.4.1990, Annexure P-2 and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hissar, dated 7.2.1991, Annexure P-3.

(2.) THE brief facts are as under :- Saroj Bala, complainant was married to Rajbir Singh on 8.5.1989. It is alleged by the petitioner that before the marriage at the 'Tikka' ceremony articles as detailed in para 4 of the complaint were given to the accused persons and further at the time of marriage, various articles in the shape of dowry as detailed in para 6 of the complaint were also given. Subsequently also, gifts were given, besides cash as detailed in para 7 of the complaint. She has alleged illicit relations of her husband with one Nirmala Devi @ Bholi and when she found the illicit relations on 12.5.1989, she was given beating. Her husband wanted to marry Nirmala but could not on account of refusal of parents of Nirmala. She has also given details about the relations of her husband with one Anupama. On 8.6.1989, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was demanded from the complainant's father for her husband's selection as a Lecturer by Haryana Public Service Commission. Her father showed his inability to give this amount as a result of which she was mercilessly beaten and turned out of the house with three clothes while the accused kept all articles of dowry. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken. Accordingly, she filed complaint. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused to stand their trial vide Annexure P-2.

(3.) PERUSAL of the record shows that the petitioners also filed a revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge against the order of summoning which stood dismissed on 7.2.1991. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in spite of their revision petition having been dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, this Court has wide and inherent powers to entertain this petition. No doubt, the High Court has inherent powers. However, the High Court must exercise these powers sparingly and cautiously. It is the duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of miscarriage of justice or to correct the irregularities committed by the Subordinate Courts in judicial process. But I do not find that this is a case which calls for interference by this Court particularly in view of the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the complainant which if taken as a whole and read in its entirety goes to show the commission of the offence for which the Court has issued process against them to stand their trial. It is not for this Court to evaluate the evidence or to see whether the allegations will ultimately end in conviction or not. This is not a case where the complaint has been made to take revenge. Mere filing of a petition for divorce by husband does not show that any offence as alleged has not been committed by the accused. It is for the trial Court to find out the truth after the complainant has led evidence and the accused has put up his defence, if he so chooses. This Court is not required to scuttle the case at its initial stage. In fact the due process of law should be allowed to continue for the ends of justice. The recent trend is to delay the trial and to create obstacles in the smooth flow of the trial. When once the petitioners have availed the remedy of revision and without showing any miscarriage of justice, illegality or misuse of judicial mechanism, they cannot be allowed to cut short the due process of law. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, 1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 724 : JT 1997(1) SC 657 which is of no help to them in due circumstances of the case.