Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2.

(2). The facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below :–

The petitioner Khuman Chand filed a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner on 3rd February, 1988 against 15 persons alleging the commission of the offences punishable u/Ss. 307, 406, 420, 342, 323, 427, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC and u/S. 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In his complaint Khuman Chand alleged that he settled the marriage of his daughter with Narendra Kumar (non-petitioner no. 3). The engagement took place on 17th Janu- ary, 1988. At the time of engagement following sums were paid to persons men- tioned below :–

1. Rs. 1101/- to Shri Punam Chand, the grand father of Narendra Kumar.

2. Rs. 401/- to Shri Singi Ji, Maternal uncle of Narendra Kumar.

3. Rs. 201/- to Narendra Kumar.

4. Rs. 251/- to Punam Chand by Jatan Lal

5. Rs. 101/- to Narendra Kumar by Jatan Lal.

6. Amounts of Rs. 21/-, 51/- and Rs. 11/- were also paid by Shanti Lal, Sagar Mal and Hanuman Mal at the time of engagement.

(3). Besides giving above mentioned amounts to persons named above, Rs. 400/- were spent on purchasing sweets and Rs. 490/- was spent for puchase of fruits. Rs. 925/- were paid for arranging the band and one golden ring bearing the inscription ``Narendra was also given to Narendra Kumar. It was also alleged in the complaint filed by Khuman Chand that it was agreed at the time of settlement of marriage that complainant would spend as much amount as his purse would allow. The date of marriage was fixed on 6th February, 1988. According to allegations made in the complaint, on 20th January, 1988 Punam Chand, went to the house of the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as a consideration for marriage. The complainant refused to meet the demand and as a consequence the proposal for the marriage of his sister was withdrawn.

(4). On 26th January, 1988 at about 8 a.m. Gauri Shanker was sent by the complainant to the house of Vijay Singh Chhajer with the direction that whatever was given at the time of engagement be taken back. Gauri Shanker returned after sometime and he told that Punam Chand, Vijay Singh and Narendra Kumar had asked to send Khuman Chand. The complainant, thereafter, went to the house of Vijay Singh with a view to take back whatever he had given at the time of engagement. It is alleged that when the complainant attempted to enter the house, the accused-persons accompanied by 10 to 15 other persons went there and tried to catch the complainant, but the complainant escaped in his jeep. He was attackedand in consequence Kiran Chand (one of the accused) was received injuries. There- after, the complainant was taken by the accused persons to their house. When the information about the incident reached the sons of the complainant, they also reached the spot. They were also caught by the accused-persons. After some time, the police officer reached the spot and the complainant and accused-persons were taken to the Police Station.

(5). It was alleged in the complaint that Vimal Chand lodged the F.I.R. No. 11/988 at Police Station, Ganga Sahar against the complainant alleging the commission of offence u/S. 307 IPC.

(6). The complaint filed by Khuman Chand was sent to the police for investigation u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of that complaint, the police registered the F.I.R. No. 17/88 in respect of offences u/Ss. 307, 406, 420, 342, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(7). After completing investigation the police submitted a final report u/S 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The complainant submitted a protest petition. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner took cognizance of the offen- ces u/Ss. 406 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against three persons, namely, Punam Chand,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document