JUDGMENT
H.C. Goel, J.
(1) Gursharan Kaur, respondent No. 1, was married to one Gurbarshan Singh, son of the present petitioners. Harbans Singh and Smt. Darshan Kaur, according to Hindu rites on July 12, 1981. Gursharan Kaur lived at the house of her husband and parents-in-law in Delhi some time up to July, 1983. Gursharan Kaur filed a complaint against her husband Gurdarshan Singh and her two parents-in-law who are the present petitioners, under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ for short). It was alleged by her that her parents bad given a number of household articles and jewellery and some cash in Installments to the three accused persons, namely her husband, Gursharan Singh, and her both parents-in-law at the time of her marriage. The three accused persons made demands for giving cash as dowry by the parents of the complainant at the time of her marriage with Gursbaran Singh. A sum of Rs. 2,000.00 in all was paid by her parents to Gursharan Singh in two Installments of Rs. 1,000.00 each after their marriage as dowry. The complainant was turned out from her husband’s house on July 2, 1983 after she bad been beaten and insulted on the ground that her parents bad not fulfillled their promise of paying total cash of Rs. 20.000.00 towards dowry. Gursharan Singh, husband of the complainant, however, later approached her and her parents that he was prepared to keep her in a separate house and that she should join him. On that the parents of the complainant arranged to get a house to Gursharan Singh for his living, as also for the living of the complainant Gursharan Kaur. They both started living together. Both the husband and Smt. Gursharan Kaur lived together in that house for a few days. Then again on July 16, 1983 she was turned out by her husband where after she has been residing with her parents. It is further alleged that on July 17, 1983 the complainant reported the matter to the police that her dowry articles may be got returned to her from her husband. At the intervention of the police and Mohalla Panchayat people some of the articles given in dowry were returned by Gursharan Singh to her and some of the articles of dowry which were given to all the three accused persons were not returned to her for one year whereupon the complainant filed the complaint against all the three accused persons in the court on July 12,1984.
(2) The petitioner gave her statement and also examined her father Gurbachan Singh and one police constable as her witnesses in the preliminary enquiry held by the learned Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate then summoned Gursbaran Sinah, husband of the complainant, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act. He, however, declined to summon the other two accused person in the case. The complainant Gursbaran Kaur filed a revision petition against that order of the learned Magistrate to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. It was stated that the learned Magistrate was in error in not summoning the two parents of her husband and prayed that they be directed to be summoned Along with her husband in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed the summoning of the two parents of her husband also for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act. Gursharan Singh bad also moved a petition to the Additional Sessions Judge for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate summoning him in the case. His revision petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
(3) Harbans Singh and Darshan Kaur have now filed the project application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the sold order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The application has been opposed by the complainant, Gursharan Kaur.
(4) In her statement as Public Witness 1 the complainant has stated that her parents had given the articles as detailed in the list Ex. Public Witness I/A to the three accused persons all of whom had checked those articles and bad taken them in their possession. She has also stated that out of these articles same of them which are detailed in another list. Ex. Public Witness 1/C only were returned to her at the intervention of the police and Mohalla Panchayat people regarding which the document Ex. Public Witness I/C was duly drawn. It was signed by her as also by her husband on July 17. 1983. Besides the statement of the complainant her father Gurbachan Singh has also stated as Public Witness 2 that the articles as detailed in the list Ex Public Witness I/A were given as dowry to the three accused persons and that accused Gurcharan Singh returned a few articles as detailed in Ex. Public Witness I/C in the presence of the police and Mohalla Panchayat people. He has further stated that her daughter bad demanded all the dowry articles excepting which she has received vide Ex. Public Witness 1/C, but all the three accused had refused to return the same to her and all the three accused are keeping those articles with them. On this material the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that a case for summoning all the three accused for the offence in question was made out and that the learned Magistrate was in error in summoning only the husband of the complainant and in declining to summon the other two accused persons. It is worthwhile to mention the premise on which the learned Magistrate declined to summon the two accused persons/petitioners He has observed that the dowry is in consideration of marriage and means handing over of certain property by one party to the marriage to the other parly to the marriage and that the parents of the bridegroom lake dowry from the parents of the bride only for and on behalf of the bridegroom and they cannot be said to have received any dowry. It is on this premise that the learned Magistrate declined to summon either of the two petitioners in the case. To my mind, this on the face of it is an incorrect view and there is nothing to warrant such an interpretation or inference. I fail to understand as to why the parents of a bridegroom cannot demand or take dowry or as to how the dowry taken by them can be said to be for and on behalf of the bridegroom. In fact in most of the cases it is the parents of the bridegroom who are greedy and who want to have the dowry and take the dowry.
(5) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the material as adduced by the complainant on the record was not sufficient for summoning either of the two petitioners I do not agree with this submission in view of what has been already said above. In conclusion the application is dismissed. It may, however, be stated here that the observations made in the order shall not prejudice the case of either party at. the trial of the case.