Subsequent harassment and ignored statements can be grounds to set aside a discharge in a dowry harassment case, and petitioners can raise all contentions before the trial court.

1. Fir dated 5.2.1999 was lodged by Babita alleging that she was married to petitioner No.1 Anand Prakash on 6.2.1998. She was harassed by maya Devi, mother-in-law; Vanita, sister-in-law; Chhitter Mal, father-in-law and maternal uncle Hari Kishan. Raja Ram, a neighbour, was also advising the accused. Since demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was turned out of the matrimonial home in January, 1999.

2. The trial Magistrate discharged the accused observing, inter alia, that the complainant had written a letter dated 28.3.1998 admitting that she left the matrimonial home of her own on account of illness and the said letter belied the version of harassment. Misappropriation of dowry was also not established.

3. On a revision being preferred against the said order by the State/ complainant, the Court of Session set aside the order of discharge and observed that even subsequent to the letter relied upon, there was harassment and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were ignored and letter dated 28.3.1998 alone could not be made a basis for discharge. Accordingly, the order of discharge was set aside and the case was remitted for a fresh decision. Hence this petition.

4. The petitioners have not impleaded the complainant, who was revisionist, as a party in the present petition. Still, I have heard counsel for the petitioners. Since by impugned order, the matter has already been remitted for a fresh order to the trial Magistrate, no ground is made out for interference at this stage. The petition is dismissed. The petitioners will, however, be at liberty to raise all contentions before the trial court in accordance with law.

5. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that petitioner No.6 was only a neighbour and not a relation and petitioner No.7 was maternal uncle while petitioners No.3 and 4 were brother and sister of the husband of the complainant, who had nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband and they have been unnecessarily impleaded. Let this aspect be also considered by the trial court. However, having regard to circumstances of the case, petitioners No.3,4,6 and 7 will be granted exemption from personal appearance and be allowed to appear through counsel on an application being filed by them, on such conditions as may be considered appropriate by the trial court.