Darshan Singh vs Gurdev Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.

Darshan Singh and others, by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of complaint Annexure P1, summoning order Annexure P2 and charge sheet Annexure A3.

The facts, as gathered from the complaint Annexure P1, may be briefly summaried :

Karnail Singh who is son of Dardhan Singh and Gurdeep Kaurpetitioners is settled in Newzealand as permanent immigrant. On April 20, 1984, he was married to Smt. Chhindo @ Paramjit Kaur daughter of complainant1. Complainant2 is maternal grandfather of Smt. Chhindo and is also her attorney. After the marriage Smt. Chhindo and Karnail Singh lived together as husband and wife for 20 days and thereafter Karnail Singh left for Newzeland. Smt. Chhindo followed him about 6 months thereafter and they both lived together for about six months, when disputes arose between both of them. The complainants had given dowry articles to the present petitioners as per list attached with the complaint which including golden ornaments, costly clothes and other articles. These articles had been taken possession of by these three petitioners. These articles had been given for the exclusive use of Smt. Chhindo and the same had been given on specific demand and was a condition precedent to the marriage. That the articles are living with the petitioners at village Kang. The petitioners were approached by the complainant but they refused to return the articles. When the complainant2 approached police station to get the FIR registered to restrain Karnail Singh from getting remarried, the police did not take any action. Darshan Singh and Piara Singh along with Karnail Singh were summoned to police station Nawanshahar and panchayats of both the villages were collected and a compromises was arrived at that the entire articles of dowry along with Rs. 50, 000/ shall be returned upto July 2, 1987, but subsequently this compromise was not complied with.

It is urged by the petitioners that the articles has in fact been taken away by Smt. Chhindo when she left for Newzealnd. This obviously is a matter of evidence which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The fact, however remains that the complainants are relying upon a compromise where an admission had been made by the petitioners about the articles being with them and a promise to return the same. In this situation, it cannot be said that the complaint was frivolous.

Since Smt. Chhindo is staying at Newzealand and is unable to prosecute the present petitioners, she had authorised her maternal grandfather Piara Singh by means of a power of attorney to recover the articles and she had in fact authorised Piara Singh to get back the property which was on entrustment with the petitioners and since they had made a promise to return the articles and then refused to comply with that promise, this has given cause to Piara Singh complainant to prosecute the present petitioners. The learned counsel has been urged that it has not been specifically stated which articles had been handed over to the particular petitioners. Even if this fact is taken into consideration, the moment the complainant is able to establish that the petitioner had retained the articles belonging to Smt. Chhindo, offence of misappropriation of the property punishable under Section 403 I.P.C. will be made out. The leanred Magistrate shall take into account this aspect and may modify the charge if after hearing the parties he is so advised.

No case is made out for quashing of the complaint or the summoning order. This petition is hereby dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on June 4, 1993. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.