Lakhbir Singh and ors vs Paramjit Kaur

S. K. Jain, J.

Smt. Paramjit Kaur filed a complaint under Sections 405 and, 406 I.P.C. against her husband Lakhbir Singh and parents inlaw namely Dalip Singh, and Smt. Gurbachan Kaur alias Bachni in the court of Shri J.S. Chawla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar. After examining upon oath the complainant and her witnesses Shingara Singh (PW2) and Jagat Singh (PW3) and reducing to writing the substance of such examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. he formed an opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 406 IPC, and issued his Summons for the attendance of the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. vide his order dated 1031989. Then after appearance of the accused he heard the learned counsel for the parties and discharged the accused and dismissed the complaint on 3071991. The correctness propriety. regularity and legality of the said order dated 30.7.1991 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, was challenged in revision petition under Section 397/398 Cr.P.C. by the Complainant in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1991. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his order dated 21101992 set aside the order dated 30.7.1991 of the Judicial Mgistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar and remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

It is that judgment dated 21. 10.1992 of the lower Revisional Court the legality of which has been challenged by the accused and which requires my examination of its sustainability.

I have seen the allegations in the complaint, the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant and the judgments of both the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1990 (2) RCR 513 has argued that since there is no specific allegation as to when and to whom the articles of dowry were given, the complaint deserved to be quashed. This argument attractive at first sight is, in my opinion not tenable on the sound appreciation of the preliminary evidence including the list Ex. P1. In para No. I of the complaint it was stated that the articles of dowry mentioned in list Annexed which comprised of the Istri Dhan of the complainant were handed over to the accused at the time of marriage. In para No. 4 of the complaint it was mentioned that the articles of dowry were given to the accused in the presence of Charan Singh, Shangara Singh and many other villagers. Then in para No 6 of the complaint, it is mentioned that these articles of dowry were handed over to the accused at the time of marriage with the specific directions that these articles were to be used exclusively by the complainant. Ex, PB is the list of articles of dowry which include two paities (big trunks), four chairs and two tables, two beds, one fan and sewing machine, one T.V set, twelve beddings. 12 pillows, five hand fans, two shelves clothes, 27 utensils, four gaddies and our covers, two table clothes, two sweaters, fifteen suits, ear rings of gold weighing one tola, one iron press, two big photos, one tokri one handkerchief and nine sweaters.

The complainant appearing as PW1 has supported the above allegations made in her complaint She has stated in unambiguous terms that the above said articles of dowry were given to Lakhbir Singh, Dalip Singh and Smt Gurbachan Kaur at the time of marriage by her parents for her use and that at that time Shingara Singh and Charan Singh were present. Charan Singh and Shingara Singh have been examined and they have fully supported the case of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the complainant has stated in her statement that one golden kara was given to her husband and one golden ring each to her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw So, these golden ornaments could not be said to be the articles of dowry. I fully agree with this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant but perusal of the list Annexure A (Ex. PB) would show that these ornaments were not included therein. The complainant has also not deposed that these ornaments were given to the above said three accused persons for her (complainant) use. Ratio in Rajesh Kumar''s case (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner because that was a case relating to the quashment of the FIR and at the preliminary stage it is the FIR only that has to be considered by the learned Magistrate.

Here in this case specific allegations of entrustment of articles of dowry have been made in the complaint. The witnesses have also supported this fact in preliminary evidence and therefore, a prime facie case was certainly made out against the husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw the accused persons under Section 406 IPC. In holding the above view, I am supported by ratio laid down In Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Sukhdev Kaur, 1992(1) RCR 64. Then the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was decided in favour of the husband. A decree of divorce had been granted and both the parties had remarried. The complainant has also admitted that after an accident the husband had become impotent and, therefore, it is evident that on account of her strained relations the complainant wife had tried to drag the parents of her husband into unnecessary litigation. In support of his argument, he has cited at the bar Gurmukh Singh and others v. Bhupinder Kaur, 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 185. I do not find any substance in this argument.

8 The facts of the above said case are tangent apart from those of the case in hand. In the above said case there was no specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to any of the accused persons whereas in this case specific allegations of entrustment of the articles of dowry has been levelled against the three accused persons

In view of the above discussions no incorrectness, impropriety or irregularity much less any illegality can be found with the impugned order which is hereby confirmed.

in the result, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Lower Court record be transmitted backwards forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 1111993.