The power to summon accused should be used sparingly for advancing criminal justice, not for harassment, and allegations in dowry cases should be scrutinized to discourage roping in all relations.

Virender Singh, J. - Harjinder Kaur, Harjit Kaur, Balbir Kaur and Balwinder Kaur daughters of Daulat Ram and Kulwinder Kaur wife of Harjinder Singh are seeking quashing of FIR No. 150 dated 2.10.2001 under Sections 498-A, 506 and 406 Indian Penal Code registered at police station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur and the subsequent proceedings including the summoning order dated 31.1.2003 and the order dated 15.4.2003 whereby they have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

2. Mr. Dadwal states that in fact Kulwinder Kaur petitioner wife of Harjinder Singh is also daughter of Daulat Ram, but she was married in the year 1994.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice of motion, the State of Punjab has filed a detailed reply to the petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned State counsel and with their assistance have gone through the entire available record on the file.

5. The present case was registered at the instance of Sushil Kanta against her husband Amrit Pal, father-in-law, mother-in-law, aunt (Chachi) and the present five petitioners on 1.10.2001 on a written application moved to the Senior Superintendent of Police; that after thorough investigation, the present petitioners were found innocent and consequently they were not challaned; that the charges were framed only against the husband, parents-in-law and the aunt by the trial Court; that after recording the statements of Sushil Kanta complainant, the trial Court on an application Annexure P5 moved by the Public Prosecutor summoned the present petitioners vide order Annexure P6 to face trial alongwith the other four accused; that thereafter the present petitioners were also charge-sheeted vide Annexure P7.

6. Seeking quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, the learned counsel contends that petitioners No. 1 to 4 are unmarried sisters of Amrit Pal husband, whereas petitioner No. 5 is his married sister, who is residing with her in-laws separately since 1994. Amrit Pal was married to the complainant in the year 1999; that at the time of the aforesaid marriage, petitioner No. 1 was hardly of the age of 21 years, petitioner No. 2 was of 18 years, petitioner No. 3 was 15 years old and petitioner No. 4 was of the age of 24 years. The age of the petitioners has been described in para No. 3 of the petition. The learned counsel then contends that petitioner No. 3 Balbir Kaur, who was born on 15.6.1984 was a minor at the time of this marriage. Dwelling upon his arguments, he further contends that the complainant has not spared any sister-in-law including Kulwinder Kaur petitioner No. 5, who in fact had got married five years prior to the said marriage of her brother Amrit Pal and was staying with her-in-laws separately in village Baghpur (a different place). He then contends that since the complainant and her husband were not having cordial relations with the family, the father of the petitioners had got published a public notice whereby he had disowned Amrit Pal his son. My attention has been drawn to para 4 of the petition, where a notice published in the newspaper (Jagbani) is reproduced. Due to differences between Amrit Pal and the complainant, they got separated with each other and in between also the matter was compromised between both of them vide Annexure P1 and as the couple was unable to sink its differences, the complainant has now come up with the present FIR, in which she has knitted a net wider involving the unmarried sisters and the married sister of her husband, just with an ulterior motive to harass them. The learned counsel further contends that on the face of it, the allegations levelled in the FIR appear to be improbable and are not at all appealing to the judicial conscience. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the dowry articles of Sushil Kanta were handed over to unmarried or married sisters of her husband and as such Section 406 Indian Penal Code on the face of it is not attracted. This was