HARJINDER KAUR Vs. MAHINDER SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure (for short to be referred as Crimial P.C. ) praying for quashing of orders Annexures P2 and P3 passed by Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Ferozepur and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur respectively in so far as they related to the discharging of respondents No. 1 and 2.

(2.) Petitioner Smt. Harjinder Kaur, daughter of Bahadur Singh, resident of Jallalabad (East), Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur was married with respondent No. 3 Jagdip Singh son of Surain Singh, resident of village Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. It is alleged that sufficient dowry was given in the marriage by the parents of the petitioner but the husband - respondent No. 3 Jagdip Singh and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and then maltreated and harassed the petitioner for the demand of more dowry and she was ultimately turned out of the matrimonial house. It is alleged that Jagdip Singh - respondent No. 3 thereafter contracted second marriage on 23.5.1993 with respondent No. 8 - Balbir Kaur, daughter of Jagran Singh, resident of Munan alia Singpur PS Zira, District Ferozepur. It was alleged further that respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Mohinder Singh son of Ujagar Singh and Smt. Pritam Kaur wife of Mahinder Singh, residents of Jallalabad (East) aforesaid had acted as mediator in the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 3 - Jagdip Singh and they also were the mediators in the second marriage. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had, thus, full knowledge of the facts that the petitioner had been married with respondent No. 3 and during the subsistence of the marriage they mediated for the second marriage of respondent No. 3 with respondent No. 8-Smt. Balbir Kaur. FIR No. 96 dated 18.9.1993 was registered against the respondents under Sec. 498-A/494 of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 4 of the.Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short to be referred as the Act 1961), copy Annexure PI. After the completion of the investigations of the case, the police submitted a challan against the respondents under Sec. 498-A/494 of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 4 of the Act 1961 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur who order for framing of charge under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code only against respondents No. 3 to 7. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, however, did not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 14.2.1994, copy Annexure P2. The petitioner challenged the validity and legality of the order Annexure P2 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur but the learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere in the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide his order dated 27.10.1995, copy Annexure P3. The State of Punjab had also filed a separate revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur against respondents No. 3, 8, 9 and 10 on the grounds that the learned Magistrate had passed his order by ignoring the provisions of Sec. 182(2) of Crimial P.C. and that the Court at Ferozepur was competent to take cognizance of the offence against the said respondents under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition Filed by the State was, however, accepted by the learned Sessions, Judge vide order dated 20.10.1994, copy Annexure P4. The respondents excepting respondents No. 1 and 2 were charged under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same evidence was available on record against respondents No. 1 and 2 and the other accused respondents namely, Harjinder Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Mandip Kaur and Karamjit Kaur but they were not proceeded with in this case. It has been urged that the impugned orders are contrary to law and are liable to be quashed and respondents No. 1 and 2 are also liable to be charged for the offence punishable under section 498-A/494 of Indian Penal Code and to face trial thereunder against the other co-accused.

(3.) Notice was issued to the respondents. Written statement was filed by the D.S.P. (Sub Division) Ferozepur on behalf of the respondent No. 11 - State contending, inter alia, that deposited the acceptance of the revision filed by the State, no charge has yet been framed and the matter was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur for framing of the charge in view of the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.