Parkasho vs Jaswinder Kaur

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint dated December 14, 1988 Annexure P 1 filed by Jaswinder Kaur and summoning order dated August 21, 1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara.

The brief facts as divulged from the complaint are that Jaswinder Kaur was married with Narinder Singh at village Jagjitpur on May 10, 1985. The petitioner and her co-accused remained present in the marriage party till the ceremonies were over. Articles in the shape of Istridhan worth Rs. 70,000/- were given at the time of marriage. After some time, the relations between the parties became strained. Jaswinder Kaur was tortured and ill-treated by Narinder Singh and other family members. Ultimately on September 9, 1988 the father of respondent Jaswinder Kaur took police help and brought the respondent to his house.

Eventually the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 406/34 I.P.C. against Narinder Singh her husband, Parkasho petitioner who is mother of Narinder Singh and other family members of Narinder Singh, on December, 14, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner and her co-accused possess the Istridhan of respondent illegally and dishonestly which was entrusted to the accused at the time of marriage and the accused have misappropriated the dowry articles in order to make wrongful loss to the respondent.

The learned Magistrate vide his impugned order dated August 21, 1989 directed the summoning of Parkasho petitioner and her son Narinder Singh.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the complaint and the summoning order on the grounds inter alia that there is no specific allegation about entrustment of any spepecific article of dowry to the petitioner; that the petitioner has been living separately from her son Narinder Singh since October, ] 985 and as such there was no question of any article of dowry having been mis-appropriated by her; that she had not gone with the marriage party and that the complaint does not disclose any offence against her.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Magistrate has passed the summoning order which cannot be said to be unjust or illegal. A perusal of the complaint shows that there are allegations against the petitioner. The arguments that there are general allegations against the petitioner and no specific allegation of entrustment of any article are such which can be raised before the Magistrate at the time of framing of the charge. At the stage of summoning, only a prima facie case is to be seen and from the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the summoning order. The petition is dismissed.

The parties, through their Counsel, are directed to appear in the Trial Court on June 15, 1990.