Criminal Misc. No.M-59602 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-59602 of 2008
Date of decision : 17.12.2008
Manju and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Ms. Meenakshi Poswal, Advocate for
Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Respondent no.2/complainant filed a (private) complaint
under Section 406/198-A IPC against the petitioners. On appraisal of the
preliminary evidence, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra, ordered the summoning of the petitioners for a trial under
Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.
In a nutshell, the grievance of the respondent No. 2 was that
though her parents had given sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage,
her in-laws were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by
her and they used to mal-treat her in a bid to pressurise her to bring more
dowry articles. On a particular occasion, she was told to stay on at her
parental house on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands and her
rehabilitation at the matrimonial house could be secured only with the
intervention of a Panchayat. Thereafter, she delivered a female child at
her parental house but none from the in-laws side visited her and no one
Criminal Misc. No.M-59602 of 2008 -2-
turned up to take her and her child back to her matrimonial house. It
impelled the respondent no.2/complainant to serve a legal notice upon her
husband.
The precise allegation appearing in the preliminary evidence
against the petitioner and the nature of those allegations had been noticed
in the impugned order itself which is fairly detailed in character and which
cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of non-application of mind.
The present is, thus, not a case in which the petitioners have
been able to make out a case for quashment of the impugned complaint
and the summoning order which followed it. If the petitioners had a
grievance with regard to the validity of that order on facts, they could have
taken recourse to the remedy available to them before the Court of
Sessions.
Dismissed.
December 17, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE