JUDGMENT
A.P. Chowdhri, J.
1. Brief facts leading to the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that Daljit Kaur filed complaint Annexure P-l dated 3.2.1988 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law i.e. sister of the husband under Sections 406/420, 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. In brief her case was that her parents and other relations had given her presents mentioned in the list enclosed with the complaint at the time of her marriage with petitioner No. 1. The said articles exclusively be longed to her as her Istridhan. The articles were entrusted to the husband and other relations of the husband mentioned above. The relations between the husband and the wife got estranged and the wife claimed the aforesaid articles from the accused and they failed to restore the same.
2. After recording preliminary evidence, comprising her own statement and that of Baljit Singh and Pritam Singh, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed summoning order dated 25 4.1988 Annexure P-2 summoning the husband and both his parents but dismissed the complaint so far as sister of the husband is concerned. The husband and his parents seek quashing of the complaint as also the summoning order through this petition.
3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations of entrustment was in general terms and there was no specific allegation with regard to various articles of dowry vis-avis a particular accused. He also submitted that according to the practice prevailent in this part of the country, mother does not accompany the marriage party of her son and there was, therefore, no question of entrustment to the mother-in-law and requiring the mother-in-law to stand prosecution would be abuse of process of the Court. The learned Counsel also contended that averments regarding alleged cruelty were also vague and the particular acts of omission or commission attributed to each individual accused were not detailed. 3.
4. After giving the matter my anxious consideration, I find that there is no merit in the above submissions. In substantially similar facts and circumstances in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 62 it was held that the allegations of entrustment were specific (vide para 7 of the report). I had examined this very point and had come to the conclusion that such allegations made could not be deemed to be unspecific [see Bhim Singh v. State 1990(3) Recent C.R. 221] It cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint did not constitute any offence. It is settled law that proceedings and specially the summoning order duly passed by the learned Magistrate in exercise P-4, of the powers conferred on him by the Code of Criminal Procedure can be quashed only in the rare of the rare cases.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear in the Trial Court for further proceedings according to law on 7.2.1991.