BIMLA RANI Vs. SAROJ ALIAS SAKUNTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Saroj alias Shakuntla was married with Ravinder Kumar, son of petitioner No. 1/Bimla Rani and brother of petitioner No. 2/Krishan Lal on 11.7.1993 at Jalalabad (West), district Ferozepur, according to Hindu religion and rites. The respondent/wife came to live with her husband Ravinder Kumar after her marriage, which was duly consummated. The respondent, however, was not properly kept at the matrimonial house and there was demand for more dowry despite the fact that the father of respondent had given considerable dowry in the marriage, as alleged in para 1 of the complaint, which reads, inter alia, as under :-

(2.) THE demand raised by husband and his relatives, including the petitioners was for a cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- or in the alternative a scooter. The father of respondent was unable to meet the said demand of the husband/Ravinder Kumar. Resultantly, the respondent/wife at the instigation of the other accused including the petitioners, was maltreated by her husband/Ravinder Kumar. She was ultimately turned out of the house in three clothes and after being given a good beating in April, 1994. All the dowry items/Istridhan of the respondent wife was kept back and misappropriated and the same was not returned even on demand to the respondent/wife. The respondent filed the complaint on 24.4.1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued to the respondent wife, who filed written statement, contending, inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had alternative remedy of approaching the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, under Section 245 Cr.P.C., but they have chosen to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. On merits, the allegations made in the complaint were reiterated and the averments made in the petition against the respondent were denied. It was alleged that the respondent never behaved negatively, which made it difficult for the petitioners to live with her. The respondent, it was averred, tried her best to preserve herself in the matrimonial house but she was forced by her husband and the petitioners to leave the matrimonial house. The impugned order of summoning passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was defended as being in accordance with the evidence led by the complainant/respondent before the said Court and in accordance with law.