MAJOR SURINDER SINGH CHOWDHRY Vs. PREM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Singh and three other accused persons have filed the present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the quashing of the complaint and the proceedings being taken thereunder for their prosecution of the offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE proceedings have gone to several courts by now. An undated complaint was filed by Smt. Prem Kumari on 22 -3 -1975 before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawan Shahr, primarily against her husband Surinder Singh who was previously employed as Major in Army. By now, the complainant has obtained a decree of divorce against Surinder Singh on the ground that he had another wife living when the second marriage was performed. Santokh Singh, accused No. 2 is the father of Surinder Singh accused No. 1, Smt. Amar Kaur, accused No. 3, is the mother of Surinder Singh, Rajinder Singh accused No. 4, is a brother of Surinder Singh. According to Smt. Prem Kumari she got married on October 17, 1968, at Nawanshahr. She found after she went to her husband's house that there was another wife of accused No. 1. She then mentioned that she continued to be maltreated and this charge was levelled against her that she had not brought the dowry to the expectations of her husband. She then made this charge that her parents had given a dowry worth Rs. 30,000/ - and a list of the articles of dowry was attached with the complaint which besides ornaments and utensils included several other articles of use in a house. The complainant cut forward this case that she had been deserted and neglected by the husband in the year 1972 and was therefore, forced to leave the house. Subsequently, she said that the accused persons had assured her that the articles of dowry would be returned but they refused to transfer the articles in her favour about two months before the institution of the complaint and in that manner she urged that the accused persons should be punished for the two offences already mentioned.

(3.) AFTER the recording of preliminary evidence the complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate by the detailed order dated 21 -4 -1975. According to him, she had kept silent about the offences committed by the accused for a period of six years and her real grievance was taken to be against her husband who had another woman in the house when he got married with the complainant. The complainant then filed a revision against the order of dismissal of complaint in the Court of Sessions and the Additional Sessions Judge Jullundur, by his order dated 8 -3.1976 took a different view and ordered further enquiry into the complaint. Thereafter the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 14 -5 -1976 passed an order for the summoning of Surinder Singh for the two offences mentioned in the complaint. There was no order in respect of the other accused persons and by implication it could be said that the complaint as against them had been dismissed. There was then another revision filed by the complainant which was heard by the Sessions Judge Jullundur who by his order dated 1 -10 -1976 took this view that there was no specific order of the dismissal of the complaint as against three of the accused persons. This finding was given that the order under revision could not be sustained and the complaint was again sent l ask to the Magistrate for further enquiry. It was directed that the final order should be a detailed one in which the evidence against the accused persons should discussed.