G S BAROCA Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a complaint under S.5 of the Dowry Restraint Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that his grand-daughter Ranjit Kour was married to accused No. 4 Kanwaljit Singh on 25-11-1984. Accused Harbhajan Singh and Smt. Mohinder Kour are the parents-in-law of the grand-daughter while accused Satinder Singh and Smt. Pinky are her brother and sister-in-law. After narrating how the marriage was solemnised it is stated in the complaint that soon after the marriage all the accused persons started harassing and teasing the bride Ranjit Kour and pressurised her to bring more dowry of at least Rs. 5000/for the purchase of furniture articles. That his granddaughter wrote a letter to him but neither he nor his son could fulfill the demand of the accused. That on 22-2-1985 the husband of Ranjit Kour along with his mother and father brought his grand-daughter to Jammu to his house and told him in clear words that Ranjit Kour would be taken back to the matrimonial house only when their demand was fulfilled. That both he and his son made efforts for amicable settlement but to no avail. That accused 1, 2 and 5 thereafter left his house leaving his grand-daughter with him.

(2.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence of the complainant and Ranjit Kour vide order dt. 31-8-1985 took cognisance of the case under S.5 of the Act but issued process against Kanwaljit Singh only who appeared on 3-10-1985 when the complainant requested the court to summon the other accused also as prima facie case against each of the accused stood established. The court, however, vide order dt. 3-10-1985 found that Kanwaljit Singh being the husband of Ranjit Kour, alone could be summoned for an offence u/s. 5 of the Act and not the others ''even as abetters" because abetment for taking dowry is no offence under the Act.

(3.) This order was challenged in revision and the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, vide his order dt. 9-4-1986 recommended that the orders of the trial court dt. 31-8-1985 and 3-10-1985 be reversed and a direction issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to summon all the five accused persons and proceed in the case in accordance with law.