Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order dated 22.1.2010 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar in criminal complaint case No. 681 of 2009, Ram Dutt Yadav v. Shiv Kumar alias Hari Nandan and another, whereby the revisionists Shiv Kumar alias Hari Nandan and Sukhpal Singh were summoned to face trial under Section 406 IPC. A prayer has also been made for quashing the entire proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case.

2. Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 - the complainant.

3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the revisionists.

4. A criminal complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 against the revisionists with the allegations that Anju Yadav, daughter of opposite party No. 2 was married with revisionist No. 2 Shiv Kumar alias Hari Nandan, who happens to be the son of revisionist No. 1 Sukhpal Singh, on 11.5.2006. At the time of engagement, a sum of Rs.20,000/- cash, utensils, clothes, sweets and fruits totaling about Rs.27,000/- was handed over to the revisionists in February, 2005. At the time of tilak, Rs.50,000/- cash, motorcycle hero honda and utensils, fruits, sweets, dry fruits and clothes worth Rs.47,000/- were given as dowry. At the time of marriage, Rs.3.50 lacs was spent. After marriage, the revisionists and other members of their family used to harass the daughter of opposite party No. 2. On 25.7.2007, anonymous information was received by opposite party No. 2 that his daughter has died. The complainant - opposite party No. 2 went to the house of the revisionists and found his daughter dead. Since his daughter died in unnatural circumstances, F.I.R. under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged on 25.7.2007 at 12:30 p.m. at police station Kalyanpur against the accused persons including the revisionists and after the submission of charge-sheet, the case is still pending. The complainant asked the revisionists many times to return the cash and goods given to them at the time of engagement, tilak and marriage and to compensate all the marriage expenses, but the revisionists did not pay any heed and refused to return the articles given in the dowry, which have been mentioned in a list accompanying the complaint. The daughter of the complainant died issue-less and, therefore, the complainant was entitled to return all the articles given as dowry.

5. The complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses namely Shyam Singh Yadav and Rajesh under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, by impugned order, found a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC and summoned the revisionists to face trial. Hence, this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and no prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. A false and fabricated complaint was made by opposite party No. 2 only to harass and humiliate the revisionists. The main contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that father of the deceased is not entitled to get the Stridhan of the deceased and it is the husband of the deceased, who is entitled to get the Stridhan after her death and no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. The revisionist No. 2 is still in jail, whereas revisionist No. 1 was granted bail in the case relating to dowry death of the daughter of the complainant.

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) the daughter of the complainant was entitled to receive the articles given as dowry and in case