Jagdish Singh Bedi vs Sukhminder Kaur

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This order of mine will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 3280M of 1989 and 9172M of 1988, as in both these applications a prayer has been made for quashing the complaint dated January 11, 1988 (as this complaint was filed against all the eight petitioners in these two applications by Sukhminder Kaur) and the summoning. order, dated February 20, 1988 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajpura Camp at Fatehgarh Sahib, summoning the eight petitioners in these two applications.

It is alleged in the complaint by Sukhminder Kaur that Marriage between her and accused Jagdish Singh Bedi was solemnised on November 11, 1984 at Sirhind City, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib, according to Anand Karaj ceremonies and that at the time of her marriage she received substantial presents and ornament, clothes, furniture and other household articles from her parents and relations. The parents of the complainant having confidence in the accused persons on account of fiduciary relationship between them entrusted the articles mentioned in Annexure `A'' at the time of marriage to the accused persons in consideration for the marriage of the complainant and accused No. 1 along with so many other items of property. It is further stated in the complaint that the abovesaid items of property mentioned in Annexure `A'' became her istridhan at a doubtful daughterinlaw of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and dutiful wife of accused Jagdish Singh Bedi. The complainant demanded back the jewellery and other articles mentioned in Annexure `A'' which were entrusted to the accused persons at the time of marriage between the complainant and accused Jagdish Singh Bedi, but the accused persons flatly refused to return any one of those articles to the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that the accused had misappropriated the dowry articles given to them at the time of her marriage. It is further stated in the complaint that when the complainant failed to bring additional dowry of Rupees Twenty Thousand and a motorcycle demanded by the accused, they started, taunting, torturing and beating the complainant and, thus, the illtreatment by the accused persons and plain refusal by the accused persons to keep the complainant in their house ultimately forced the complainant to stay with her mother and brothers since June 16, 1986 at Sirhind City. In consequence to the filing of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate summoned all the accused in the complaint except Accused Nos. 7 to 13. Against the summoning order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, dated February 20, 1988. Jagdish Singh Bedi petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 3280M of 1989 and seven other petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9172M of 1989) have filed these Applications for quashing the complaint, dated January 11, 1988 annexed as Annexure P1 with both the petitions as well as the summoning order, dated Feb. 20, 1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the following grounds :

that the marriage was solemnised on November 11, 1984. The alleged occurrence took place in or around the month of August, 1985, whereas the instant complaint was filed only on January 11, 1988 after a long delay.

that the order summoning the accusedpetitioners is without application of judicial mind. as Paragraph 3 of the said order reveals that Accused Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Jagdish Singh Bedi, husband of the respondent, Jarnail Singh Bedi and Balbir Kaur, father and mother of Jagdish Singh Bedi respectively were entrusted some ornaments but there was no such finding, against any other accusedpetitioners;

the respondent while implicating the petitioners has involved many other persons. The finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate shows that relations not connected with the case have been involved;

there is no specific allegation of entrustment, conspiracy or common intention against the accused petitioners. Petitioner No. 3, brother of the husband of the respondent was only 20 years of age at the time of marriage, whereas petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 were married before the marriage of the respondent with the abovesaid Jagdish Singh. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint (title) that they are married and living separately with their husbands in distant villages. It is not mentioned in the complaint, that they are on visiting terms with their parents or even stayed with them ever.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case with their help. I find that there are no specific allegations. that any particular article of dowry was entrusted to any particular accused. General and vague allegations are made in the complaint regarding the entrustment of articles of dowry to all the accused. The trial Magistrate has not adverted to any evidence specifically implicating any of the pensioners except Jagdish Singh Bedi, Balbir Kaur and Jarnail Singh Bedi in respect of any particular articles of dowry. Such being the situation, the dragging in of relations other than Jagdish Singh Bedi, Balbir Kaur and Jarnail Singh Bedi, is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. In matters relating to the return of dowry there is an element of sympathy for the unfortunate wife but this must not be allowed to be dissipated by seeking to use it as an occasion to unnecessarily harass and humiliate relations on the husband''s side who are not involved in any manner. In this view of the matter, the complaint against the petitioners Rajinder Singh, Swaranjit Kaur Paramjit Kaur, Karamjit Kaur and Ranji Kaur as also the order summoning them as accused, cannot be sustained and accordingly the complaint and the summoning order against them are hereby quashed.

Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application (No. 3280M of 1989) filed by Jagdish Singh Bedu, is dismissed and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9172M of 1988 preferred by Jarnail Singh Bedi and Balbir Kaur is partly allowed to the extent, indicated above.

JUDGMENT accordingly.