Gurmej Kaur vs Balbir Kaur

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Gurmej Kaur wife of Bakhtawar Singh has filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the complaint dated August 4, 1986, filed by her daughterinlaw Balbir Kaur respondent and the summoning order dated January 30, 1987, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, whereby he has summoned her under section 406, IPC.

Shamsher Singh son of the petitioner was married to Smt. Balbir Kaur complainant respondent on May 16, 1976, in village Saidowal. A child was born in the year 1977, (no date of birth of the child has been given in the petition). After the birth of the child, there was some dispute between the parties, but they continued to live together (sic) 2, 1982. After that date, both parties (sic). According to the petitioner, the respondent complainant left the house of her husband and according to the complainant she was turned out.

A complaint was filed by Smt. Balbir Kaur against Shamsher Singh, her husband, Bakhtawar Singh, her fatherinlaw, Smt Gurmej Kaur, her motherinlaw and Manjit Singh, her brotherinlaw (husband''s brother), under sections 4, 4B and 6 of, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 406, IPC on August 4, 1986. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, summoned the abovementioned four accused under section 406, IPC and Shamsher Singh was also summoned under sections 4, 4B and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Smt. Gurmej Kaur, feeling aggrieved against the complaint and the summoning order, has filed this petition for quashing the same.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the complaint dated August 4, 1986, Annexure P. 1, summoning order dated January 30, 1987, Annexure P. 2 and the copies of the statements (filed by the respondent along with the reply) of the witnesses who were examined in support of her complaint before the order of summoning was issued. They are PW 1 Balbir Kaur, PW 2 Pritam Singh, her maternal uncle, PW 3 Harbhajan Singh; a covillager, PW 4 Inderjit Kaur, mother of Balbir Kaur.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence to connect Gurmej Kaur petitioner with the crime. He has pointed out that Balbir Kaur neither in her complaint nor in her statement states anything specifically incriminating the petitioner and in the absence of any evidence, the summoning of the petitioner, who is an old lady, is not warranted by law.

I have considered the argument and find some force in the same.

It is the case of the complainant Balbir Kaur that her marriage party had come to village Saidowal, tehsil and district Kapurthala from the village of the accused situate in district Ludhiana and dowry articles were entrusted to the accused at village Saidowal, tehsil and district Kapurthala. It is neither in the complaint nor in her statement that Smt. Gurmej Kaur had accompanied the marriage party of her son. It is a matter of common knowledge that old mothers do not go in the marriage parties of their sons in villages of central Punjab. In the absence of any averment in the complaint or in the statement of Balbir Kaur that Gurmej Kaur had accompanied the marriage party, it will be taken that Smt. Gurmej Kaur had not accompanied the marriage party, and if she has not accompanied the marriage party, the question of entrustment of the dowry articles to her does not arises. Unless entrustment is proved, there can be no question of misappropriation. Even otherwise, the allegation qua entrustment and misappropriation is in general terms. There is no specific allegation against any of the accused much less against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice A sentence in the statement of Inderjit Kaur PW 4 stating that : "accused bridegroom father and mother also accompanied the marriage party. Accused took all the dowry articles to Ludhiana in a truck". No importance can be attached to this sentence when there is no averment that any entrustment was made to Smt. Gurmej Kaur or that she was present in village Saidowal at the time of the marriage, in the complaint or in the statement of Balbir Kaur. In the absence of any specific allegation, the order of summoning the petitioner under section 406, IPC is bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in summoning the petitioner under section 406, IPC in the complaint filed by Smt. Balbir Kaur. The order of summoning dated January 30, 1987, is quashed.