Jasvir Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Rekha Mittal, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as '' the Code'') seeking quashing of complaint ''Ramanjit Kaur v. Sandeep Singh and others'' (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure P2) for offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, pending in the Court of J.M.I.C., Barnala. In brief, Ramanjit Kaur (respondent No. 2) complainant was married to Sandeep Singh in the year 2002. Jasvir Kaur is the mother and Bhupinder Kaur is the sister of Sandeep Singh. As per allegations of the complaint, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was spent on the marriage. The complainant was given one gold set (four tolas) and four gold Bangles (six tolas). Sandeep Singh was given one gold kara (11/2 tolas). Jasvir Kaur was given one pair of gold ear rings. Kheta Singh (father of Sandeep Singh) was given one gold ring (11/2 tolas) and one blanket. Bhupinder Kaur was given one gold chain (11/2 tolas) and one suit. One Maruti car make ZEN and Rs. 2.5 lacs was given in lieu of household items. After marriage , the complainant stayed at Massana and jewellery belonging to her was retained by her mother-in-law with a promise to return it to the complainant. Sandeep Singh and his parents shifted to Meerut and Sandeep Singh started his business of transport company at Meerut. The accused started taunting the complainant that Maruti Zen Car is not as per their status. The accused gave beatings to the complainant and she was turned out of the matrimonial home in June, 2003. She delivered a male child in her parental home on 10.09.2003. The complainant was rehabilitated in the matrimonial home in November 2005, when her father promised to give some more money. In March 2006, she was again turned out of the matrimonial home and her istridhan was not returned.

Learned trial Court, after recording preliminary evidence consisting of statements of the complainant, Shingara Singh and Mohinder Singh, on October 8, 2007, summoned the accused including the present petitioners to face trial for offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per allegations brought forth by the complainant, no specific allegations have been levelled against Bhupinder Kaur in regard to entrustment of istridhan articles of the complainant or misappropriation thereof, to make out a prima facie case against her for offence u/s 406 IPC. It is further submitted that the complainant has raised vague and general allegations that she was subject to beatings by the accused. The complainant has not given any date, month and year when she was maltreated much less given beatings by the petitioners. According to counsel, Bhupinder Kaur is married sister of Sandeep Singh and her marriage was performed in the year 2000, prior to the marriage of complainant Ramanjit Kaur with Sandeep Singh. Further dilating, it is submitted that Bhupinder Kaur is leading a happy married life in her matrimonial home at Ludhiana and has nothing to do with the family affairs of Ramanjit Kaur and Sandeep Singh and she would not be a beneficiary, if a bigger car was given by the parents of the complainant to her parental family. He has prayed that the complaint filed by Ramanjit Kaur and summoning order passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, are liable to be quashed.

Ramanjit Kaur, respondent No. 2 was earlier represented by an Advocate. Neither Ramanjit Kaur is present in the Court nor she is represented by any counsel, despite repeated calls. As a result, there is no counter to the plea of the petitioners that Bhupinder Kaur was married in the year 2000 and is leading a happy married life in her matrimonial home at Ludhiana.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.

A perusal of the allegations of the complaint (Annexure P1) would reveal that Bhupinder Kaur was given one gold chain (11/2 tolas) and one suit, which, obviously, would constitute customary gift given by the parents of the complainant to married sister of Sandeep Singh. There is no allegation that any of the articles, constituting istridhan of the complainant, was entrusted to Bhupinder Kaur. The complainant has alleged that her jewellery articles have been retained by her mother-in-law-Jasvir Kaur. There is no allegation against Bhupinder Kaur that she was ever present in her parental home when the complainant was maltreated or given beatings or was turned out of the matrimonial home. There is no challenge to the version of Bhupinder Kaur that she was married in the year 2000 and since then, she is living in her matrimonial home at Ludhiana. Keeping in view the allegations of the complainant when examined in the light of the fact that Bhupinder Kaur was married prior to the marriage of the complainant, I find force in the contentions that the complaint against Bhupinder Kaur, is nothing, but an abuse and misuse of process of law. Bhupinder Kaur has been implicated in this case, being real sister of Sandeep Singh. The learned trial Court has passed the summoning order in a mechanical manner, without recording any reason with regard to the role attributable to Bhupinder Kaur.

With regard to plea of Jasvir Kaur, the complainant has levelled specific allegations against her to the effect that her dowry articles had been retained by Jasvir Kaur and the same were not returned to the complainant. Keeping in view the averments of the complaint and statement of the complainant recorded during preliminary evidence, no fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court summoning Jasvir Kaur to face trial for offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. The summoning order dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure P2), passed by the JMIC, Barnala, is set aside qua summoning of Bhupinder Kaur. However, prayer of petitioner-Jasvir Kaur for quashing of the complaint and summoning order is hereby rejected.