Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 89
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.B. Garg, J.
Balbir Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Harpreet Kaur - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. 8272-M of 1992.
Decided On : 22 January, 1993
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kamaljit Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ujjal Singh, Advocate.
The court emphasized the need for specific and justified allegations before summoning the entire family in cases involving dowry allegations.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Complaint - Family Members - Dowry Allegations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a complaint for offences under Sections 403, 406, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code filed by the wife against the husband and his family members, alleging non-entrustment of dowry articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summoning of the entire family, including the husband, parents, and brothers of the husband, was not justified based on vague allegations of dowry non-entrustment. The court quashed the complaint against the husband's parents and brothers but ordered the husband and wife to appear in the trial court for further proceedings.
Issues: The key issue was whether the summoning of the entire family based on vague allegations of dowry non-entrustment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the residency of the wife with the husband, the timing of the allegations, and the vagueness of the allegations against the family members in determining the justification for summoning the entire family.
Final Decision: The complaint was quashed against the husband's parents and brothers, but the husband and wife were ordered to appear in the trial court for further proceedings.
J. B. Garg, J. - Balbir Singh, the husband, Pritam Singh and Pritam Kaur, the parents of the husband, Joginder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, the two brothers of the husband and Manjit Kaur wife of the aforesaid brother Joginder Singh, have moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that a complaint instituted by Harpreet Kaur for offences under Sections 403, 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code together with the summoning Order dated 15-6-1992, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, be quashed.
2. It has been alleged that Balbir Singh was married to Harpreet Kaur on 7-10-1990; that it was a simple marriage; that there was no entrustment of any articles of dowry to the petitioners No. 2 to 6; that the prayer of the complainant was that her complaint may be sent to the police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Chief Judicial Magistrate travelled far away and summoned the petitioners.
3. The mere fact that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not send the complaint to the police for inquiry though it was desired by the complainant, would not render the impugned Order as void ab initio inasmuch as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statement of the complainant and also Joginder Singh the father of the complainant and together with the documentary evidence whatever it was he passed the impugned order.
4. The question which requires consideration here is whether the summoning of the husband, his parents, two brothers and the wife of one brother or in other words say the entire members of the family, was justified.
5. It appears that the wife resided with the husband and from 7.10.1990 to 7-8-1991 and a child was also born out of the wedlock on 1-12-91. The allegations made in para No. 3 of the complaint are that one shirt and one trousers each were given to Joginder Singh and Jaswinder Singh. On such allegations it shall not be fair to launch the prosecution against the brothers of the husband, a couple of years after the marriage. Similarly, the allegations against Pritam Kaur and the wives of the two brothers are also vague. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Anokh Singh and ors. v. Paramjit Kaur, 1990(1) RCR 497, where also all members of the family of the husband were dragged to the Court. The conclusion is that the petition partly succeeds and it is ordered that the complaint is hereby quashed vis-a-vis petitioners No. 2 to 6. However, the husband and the complainant-wife, shall appear in the trial Court on 15-2-1993 for disposal of the complaint in accordance with law.
