The summoning of accused in a criminal case must reflect the application of mind by the Court to the facts and evidence, and should not be a matter of course.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order dispose of two criminal Misc. petitions bearing Crl. Misc. No. 18077-M of 1999 filed by Rajinder Mohan Kashyap and Crl. Misc. No. 8903-M of 2001 filed by Yogesh Kaushal and Deepshikha, for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent-Om Parkash Sharma under Sections 498-A/406 and 420, Indian Penal Code and the summoning order dated 11.5.1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar on the aforesaid complaint. However, the facts are taken from Crl. Misc. No. 18077-M of 1999.

2. In this case, respondent-Om Parkash Sharma, father of the girl filed a criminal complaint against seven members of the family of the husband, namely, Anupam Sharda, for the offences under Sections 498-A/406 and 420, Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint, all the seven members including the husband have been summoned by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 498-A/406 and 420, Indian Penal Code by making the following order:

"I have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the file of this case. After carefully hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant and after perusal of the file, this Court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to summon the accused under Sections 420, 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. As such, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are ordered to be summoned under Sections 406, 420 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 are ordered to be summoned under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code on P.F. and copies of complaint for 25.8.99."

3. The three petitioners, who are the maternal uncle (accused No. 7 in the complaint), brother-in-law and sister-in-law (accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint) of the husband, have filed the instant petitions for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) as well as aforesaid summoning order on three grounds. Firstly, that no specific allegations have been levelled against them in the complaint and all the allegations are vague and general in nature. Secondly, that in the complaint, material fact regarding divorce between the husband and the wife and handing over of the dowry articles by the husband to the wife in Australia have been concealed. Thirdly, that all the three petitioners, who are living separately have been falsely implicated in the complaint and the continuation of such a complaint against them is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the complaint as well as the summoning order and the other materials and documents available on the record, including the reply filed by the complainant.

5. In this case, undisputedly the marriage between the daughter of the complainant and accused No. 1, namely Anupam Sharda was solemnised in the month of January, 1905. At that time, the husband was residing in Australia where he was settled for the last so many years The said marriage was settled by the parents of both the parties on the basis of matrimonial advertisement in the newspaper. No active part was played by either of the petitioners in the settlement and performance of the marriage. After a month of the marriage, the husband went back to Australia. Up to that time, the relations between the husband and wife were cordial Subsequently, the wife also went to Australia on the basis of sponsorship sent by the husband. Thereafter, in the month of September, 1996, a child was born to the couple in Australia. After the birth of the child, it has been alleged that the wife came back to India for some period and subsequently she again went to Australia along with the child. In Australia, a decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on 24.4.1998, a copy of the same has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, This fact has not been disputed. The petitioners have also annexed the list of articles which were delivered to the wife in Australia, which has