RATTAN CHAND Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J. - This is a petition filed by Rattan Chand and another (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1988 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in the criminal complaint, Rattan Chand v. Tarsem Lal.

(2.) THE relevant facts alleged are that petitioner No. 2 Smt. Anita Kumari was married with respondent No. 1 in November, 1984. Sufficient dowry was provided by petitioner No. 1 who is the father of petitioner No. 2. After the marriage, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 1 cohabited and lived together. They were blessed with a child in July, 1985. It was found that respondent No. 1 was addicted to excessive drinking. He was cruel and inhuman. Petitioner No. 2 was beaten on several occasions without any rhyme and reason. Petitioner No. 1 told respondent No. 1 to behave better but without results. In the last week of February, 1985 petitioner No. 2 was beaten by respondent No. 1 and turned out of the house. The female child was born in the house of her parents. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. The said petition was allowed and divorce was granted. The dowry articles were never returned by respondent No. 1. A complaint was filed by petitioner No. 2 against the respondents with respect to offences punishable under Section 406 IPC, read with Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After recording of the preliminary evidence, summons were issued and respondents appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Some of the dowry articles even were returned.

(3.) ON perusal of the petition and looking on the facts of the same, it is clear that it is an abuse of the process of the Court. On 30.3.1988 the petitioner had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Her statement had been recorded and thereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate had passed the following order :-