Mrs. Sabina, J.:- This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of criminal complaint No.29-T dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 11.7.2012 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the complaint itself revealed that no criminal offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Complainant had got married to the son of the petitioners on 7.11.1996. As per the complainant, on 4.9.1997, she had been given beatings by all the accused for bringing less dowry. Thereafter, the complainant had not resided with the petitioners. In fact, the son of the petitioners had started residing in Patiala with the complainant. At the time of marriage of the complainant, petitioners were residing in Assam. Complainant had also come to Assam after her marriage but thereafter, the petitioners had shifted to Jalandhar. The entire business of the petitioners in Assam was handed over to the husband of the complainant. In fact, the petitioners had disowned their son. The said fact was substantiated from the allegations in the complaint that the petitioner had not gone to see their son in PGI, Chandigarh or Amar Hospital, Patiala, when he had met with an accident on 25.7.2000. Petitioners had only visited their son on 11.9.2001. All the allegations have been levelled in the complaint against the son of the petitioners. Further the impugned summoning order had been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.K.Bhowmik vs. S.K.Arora and another 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 650, wherein, in para 14, it was held as under:-

“Process is issued in this case only on the basis of examination of the complainant and CW-2. This is obviously under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It was done much prior to the date of amendment of Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is seen that no enquiry/investigation is held as is required under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The quashing of the summoning order is sought mainly on the ground that the Magistrate has not held enquiry, which is obligatory. If the Magistrate had considered the amended Section 202 Cr.P.C., he was bound to hold enquiry/investigation thereunder before issuing process, though this court would not have any power to interfere or to substitute its own discretion over that of a Magistrate. Where Criminal Magistrate is seen to have exercised his discretion judicially, the same may not call for any interference. The defence of the accused is not the factor, which is required to be taken into consideration to call for any interference in the order. Even the irregularity in the procedure under this section, which does not result in miscarriage of justice, may not call for any interference by a court. Whether a prima facie case is made out from the evidence recorded or not, would be a matter within the discretion of the Magistrate. In fact some inadequacy of the enquiry will also not call for any interference. But enquiry or investigation in case where the accused resides beyond his jurisdiction cannot now be wished away being mandatory. In this case, no enquiry or investigation have been held and process, as such, is issued in violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and cannot be sustained. Thus, impugned order is accordingly set aside and case is sent back to the Magistrate to examine fresh by adhering to the requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each other, had been harassing the complainant. In fact, whereabouts of the son of the petitioners were not known to the complainant. The son of the