The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of revisional powers, the prima facie nature of summoning orders, and the legal principles regarding dowry and stridhan property.

Jasbir Singh, J.

1. Petitioner Gurdeep Kaur, the complainant, has filed this criminal revision against order dated 4.6.1990 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which revision petition filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was allowed and order of the Trial Magistrate dated 10.7.1989 (Annexure P/2) summoning the accused in criminal complaint filed by the petitioner was set aside. In this revision petition, prayer is also made to set aside order dated 9.6.1990 (Annexure P/5) vide which Trial Magistrate, on the basis of order Annexure P/4, dismissed complaint of the petitioner.

2. It was case of the petitioner that her marriage was solemnised with respondent No. 1 on 12.10.1983 at Jalandhar. At the time of marriage, dowry articles worth Rs. one lac were given and entrusted to all the accused. Respondents were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they started demanding scooter and cash amount from the complainant. On her inability to do so, they started mal-treating, torturing and abusing her. When she was in family way, she was given servere beatings by the accused and she was thrown out of her matrimonial house. Due to that her health deteriorated. It was further case of the petitioner that on account of beatings, mental agony and physical pain, she gave pre-mature birth to a child, who was found dead on 13.6.1984. Respondents never came to enquire about her health and regarding birth of dead child. They rather told the petitioner and her parents that they would keep the petitioner in her matrimonial house only when their demands were fulfilled.

3. On efforts being made by petitioners brother and other relatives, she was taken to her in-laws house on 29.5.1985. Their attitude did not change and continued to remain indifferent and cruel towards the petitioner. She was pressed to make a request to her brother, who was settled in USA to send money for the purchase of scooter, VCR and other articles, which were required to be given to the sister of respondent No. 1 at the time of her marriage, which was going to be celebrated on 19.4.1987.

4. When she refused to oblige them, she was separated from the family and was made to live in a rented house in the same locality on 20.5.1987. In a very arbitrary manner, none of her dowry articles and other articles of daily use were given to her. Even thereafter agony of the petitioner did not stop because of constant torture, mal-treatment and beatings. Again 4-1/2 months pregnancy of the petitioner was terminated on 9.8.1987 in Chawla Maternity Hospital, Jalandhar City.

5. On 3.10.1987, respondent No. 1 left the petitioner at her parents house on the pretext that she should spend some holidays with them. Later it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that on the same day in the evening, respondent No. 1 vacated the rented house, in which she was residing. It was case of the petitioner that all dowry articles, including her ornaments were lying with the respondents. They never returned, despite demand and had mis- appropriated those articles. Despite efforts made by parents of the petitioner, respondents virtually refused to rehabilitate the petitioner in her matrimonial house.

6. Compelled under these circumstances, she filed a complaint against all the respondents for commission of offences under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. To support her complaint, she got recorded her statement as PW-1 and also produced her father Banta Singh (PW-2), Mohan Singh (PW-3) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-4), who fully supported her version, as found mentioned in her complaint, Annexure P-1, in this revision petition.

7. Trial Magistrate, on appraisal of evidence, as led by the complainant/petitioner, summoned all the respondents to face trial for offences, as referred to above vide order dated 10.7.1989 (Annexure P-2).

8. Record shows that against order Annexure P-2, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 namely Gurmeet Kaur mother-in-law and Parminder Singh brother-in-law