Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009(O&M) -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 14.12.2009.
Manjit Babu @ Manjit Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Criminal Misc. No.63537 of 2009.
Allowed as prayed.
Written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken
on record.
Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009
The petitioner is USA based NRI,sister-in-law of respondent
no.2 who has been summoned, vide impugned order, to face a trial in
complaint No.195 dated 14.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) for offences under
Sections 406-498-A IPC.
In the course of hearing, this Court has been taken through
the First Information Report with a view to be able to find out the
correctness or otherwise of plea on behalf of the petitioner that no dowry
article ever came to be entrusted to her.
After having been through the FIR, it is beyond the pale of
Criminal Misc. No.M-20165 of 2009(O&M) -2-
****
controversy that only two precise allegations against the petitioner herein
are that a golden ring was given to her at the time of marriage and that a
brief case containing 20 suits was handed over to her. Besides these two
allegations, all other allegations against her are general in character and
are not capable of judicial cognizance which could end up in fixture of
accountability thereof. Insofar as the handing over of the golden ring to the
petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said to be a part of the ‘dowry’. It is
customary in the Indian society to make a presentation of gifts like ring
etc. on the occasion of marriage. Insofar as the entrsutment of brief case
is concerned, the connecting averment is that the brief case was handed
over to the petitioner herein with an understanding that the suits were
meant for exclusive use by respondent lno.2 and that those will be made
available to her by the petitioner herein on demand at the matrimonial
house. In that context to it may be noticed that the suits aforementioned
cannot be deemed to be a part of the ‘dowry’, particularly when there is
want of a precise averment that there was any demand upon the petitioner
herein to hand over those suits to respondent no.2 or she had declined to
do so.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that
allowing the impugned prosecution to continue qua the petitioner herein
would amount to an abuse of process of Court. The petition shall stand
allowed. The impugned prosecution shall stand quashed qua petitioner
herein.
Disposed of accordingly.
December 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE