Paramjit Singh and Others vs Harbans Kaur

H.K. Sandhu, J.—Petition has been filed by Paramjit Singh husband of Harbans Kaur respondent and his parents u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint Annexure P/1 and summoning order passed in the complaint Annexure P/2 whereby the petitioners were summoned to stand trial for an offence u/s 406 I.P.C.

Harbans Kaur respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and against five sisters of petitioner No. 1 alleging that she was married to petitioner No. 1 at village Kalyan, Tehsil Malorkotla about 5 1/2 years ago in accordance with Anand Karj form of marriage. Her marriage was attended by the parents and sisters of petitioner No. 1. Her father spent Rs. 95,000/- and gave sufficient dowry consisting of articles mentioned in para No. 6 of the complaint. Besides these articles gold ornaments were also given to her. Some gold ornaments and clothes were given to petitioner No. 1 and his relatives. Rs. 10,000/- were given to her father-in-law in cash as dowry besides Rs. 2,000/-, which were handed over by way of Kanya Dan. All the articles constituted her Istri Dhan and were meant for her exclusive use. The petitioners and sisters of petitioner No. 1 were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they started demanding one television and a motor-cycle. As the complainant was not able to fulfil their demand, she was maltreated and ultimately in September 1988 she was turned out of the house. Since then she was risiding at village Kalyan with her parents. She demanded the return of articles of dowry which constitute her Istri Dhan but the petitioners and their co-accused did not return the same and dishonestly and malafide retained those articles in order to obtain a wrongful gain for themselves and wrongful loss to her.

After preliminary evidence was recorded the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malorkotla found that the sisters of the husband were not expected to be in possession of the dowry articles but, prima-facie case u/s 406 I.P.C was made out against the husband and his parents The petitioners were, thus, summoned to face trial for an offence u/s 406 I.P.C. as per order dated 11.7.1990.

The petitioners alleged that the allegations made in the complaint were general and there were no specific averments regarding the entrustment of various articles of dowry to the petitioners. The statutory ingredients of the offence u/s 406 I.P.C. were missing. It was further contended that summoning order Annexure P/2 was non-speaking order and in fact there was no iota of material on record to implicate the petitioners for the alleged offence The allegations of entrustment were in general terms. Even otherwise the story set up by the respondent in the Complaint was disbelieved so far as sisters of petitioner No, 1 were concerned arid there was no justification for summoning the petitioners to stand trial

Reply has not been filed in this case.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that there were no specific averments in the complaint regarding the entrustment of different articles of dowry to the petitioners. The averments regarding entrustment were made in para No. 9 of the complaint wherein it was alleged that the dowry articles mentioned in paras No. 6 to 8 were entrusted to all the accused at the time of marriage and these articles were meant for exclusive use of the complainant and were received by the accused as trust property in the presence of Shri Karnail Singh son of Mal Singh, Surjit Kaur wife of Surja Singh and Babu Singh, Member Panchayat of village Kalyan. It was not clearly mentioned as to which of the articles mentioned in para No. 6 was handed over to any of the petitioners. The Trial Court had found that no case was made against the sister of the husband and they were not summoned to face trial. When no case was made out against some of the co-accused, the petitioners too should not have been summoned on the basis of the same general and vague allegations. It was further contended that the order passed by the Trial Court was not a speaking order.

Both the contentions of the learned Counsel are without merit. A perusal of the complaint shows that there are specific averments regarding entrustment of different articles to petitioner No. 1 and his parents. In para No. 7 of the complaint there was a definite allegation that father-in-law of the complainant was given Rs. 10,000/- in cash as dowry. Para No. 6 contains a list of the particles given to the complainant at the time of her marriage to be used by her as her Istri Dhan. The Trial Court prima-facie found that since three of the sisters of the petitioner No. 1 were married and must be living with their-in laws and two of the sisters were unmarried, they could not be in possession of the dowry articles At the stage pf issuing process the Magistrate was mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence led in support of the same and he was only to be prima facie satisfied whether there was sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused He was not to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits and de-merits of the case. He had an undoubted discretion in the matter which appears to have been exercised by him judiciously. The averments made in the complaint so far as the petitioners are concerned taken at their face value made out a prima facie case for an offence u/s 406 LP.C. against them. There are the averments regarding entrustment of dowry articles to them and it is also pleaded that when they were asked to return those articles they refused to do so and rather retained the same in order to obtain a wrongful gain for themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Even otherwise the case of the husband and his parents stand on different footing than the case of the sister. In Parkash Kaur and Ors. v. Kulwant Kaur 1992 (1) RC R 348, there were allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles in a criminal complaint against mother of bridegroom, his brothers and sisters. It was held that in view of presence of mother of bridegroom, brothers or sisters are usually not expected to accept Istri Dhan. Case of mother of bridegroom stands on a different footing as rebutable presumption of entrustment of property is available from natural behaviour of human beings.

In the instant case both father and mother of the bridegroom were present at the time of marriage and various articles of dowry must have been accepted by them. There are specific allegations regarding entrustment of some articles to the petitioners. They were, therefore, rightly summoned by the Trial Court to stand Trial for the offence u/s 406 LP.C.

For the reasons recorded above I find no merit in this petition and dismissed the same.