JASVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Jaswinder Singh, son of Tarlok Singh and others seeking the quashing of complaint Annexure P.1 titled 'Smt. Simarjit Kaur v. Jaswinder Singh and others' under Sections 406, 498-A, 34, 506, 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They have also prayed for quashing of the order Annexure P.2 whereby they have been summoned for their trial by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code lie in narrow compass:

(3.) IN support of their prayer for the quashment of the complaint and the order summoning them for trial they have averred that all the accused are residing separate holding separate ration cards and maintaining separate hearth and home. Complaint was sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to SHO, Police Station, City Karnal, where compromise took place. Smt. Simarjit Kaur did not stick to that compromise and stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that she would go ahead with the complaint. Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order issuing search warrants under Section 93 of the Code for the recovery of the alleged articles of dowry. Jaswinder Singh etc. filed revision against that order and the operation of that order was stayed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Most of the articles which Smt. Simarjit Kaur says that they are her dowry belong to them, they are in possession of the receipts showing the purchase of articles by them. A daughter was born to Smt. Simarjit Kaur on 12.12.1992. She killed that child when that child was four days old with the motive to get rid of this alliance and remarry someone else. Jaswinder Singh filed complaint under Sections 302/304/317/506/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Simarjit Kaur and others on 15.1.1993. Smt. Simarjit Kaur is a hot headed woman. Her behaviour towards her husband was cruel. She wanted to usurp ornaments and other articles through the instrumentality of complaint Annexure P.1. In the complaint there is no mention as to which article was entrusted to which accused. Allegations as to entrustment are too general and vague in character. No complaint was ever made by her to the police or to any other authority as to the demand of dowry being made by them or their having ever beaten her.