The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific allegations, role attribution, and scrutinizing evidence when summoning an accused in a criminal case, as well as the seriousness of the matter.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/modification of order dated 11.6.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SBS Nagar, whereby, the respondents were not summoned in the complaint filed under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and also for quashing of impugned order dated 1.9.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, vide which, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 498-A IPC against the respondents and co-accused-Jatinder Singh and Charanjit Kaur alleging therein that her daughter, namely, Harpreet Kaur was married to Jatinder Singh on 9.1.2009 and a girl child was also born out of the said wedlock. Sufficient dowry was given to the respondents at the time of marriage but they were not happy with the same. The respondents used to harass the daughter of the complainant and demanded Rs. 20 lacs for compensating the deficiency in dowry. In preliminary evidence, the petitioner examined herself as CW-1, Inderjeet Singh as CW-2 and her daughter-Harpreet Kaur as CW-3. Accused-Jatinder Singh and Charanjit Kaur were summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC vide order dated 11.6.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SBS Nagar but the complaint qua accused-respondents, namely, Harvinder Singh @ Bhola Thekedar, Anita Rani and Inderjeet Kaur was dismissed on the ground of vague allegations and insufficient material evidence.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by JMIC, SBS Nagar, the petitioner filed revision petition before Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar stating therein that specific allegations were levelled against them regarding demand of dowry, misappropriation of dowry articles as well as for maltreating to the daughter of the complainant but said revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 1.9.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below have not taken into consideration the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, wherein, specific roles were assigned to the respondents sought to be summoned. Specific overt acts of misappropriation of dowry articles and maltreatment were also attributed. Earlier a compromise was effected between the parties but thereafter complaints were made to the police and the same have not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order to the extent of not-summoning the respondents is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and another 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 306 and of this Court in the cases of M/s. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and others v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 138, Lajwanti @ Bimla v. State of Haryana and others 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 929 and Sanwar Mall Agarwalla v. M/s Grasim Industries Limited 2015 (5) RCR (Criminal) 70, in support of his contentions.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned orders, complaint and statements of witnesses.

6. While passing the aforesaid impugned order, following findings have been recorded by JMIC, SBS Nagar:-

"However, as far as Harvinder Singh, Anita Rani and Inderjeet Kaur are concerned, only vague allegations have been made against them. How and when they were entrusted with dowry articles or whether they have any control of Istridhan of Harpreet Kaur is not explained anywhere. Further, it has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that Istridhan of Harpreet Kaur is under lock of accused Charanjit Kaur. Also there is no specific allegation as to when demand of Rs. 20 lacs was made by these persons. Though it