Crl. Revision No.1424 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Rev. No. 1424 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.8.2009
Sarabjit Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Sukhjinder Kaur and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a revision petition against the order dated 2nd June,
2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby he
set-aside the summoning order in respect of respondent No.1 under
Sections 406 & 498-A IPC.
A complaint was lodged by Sarabjit Kaur petitioner in the
court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, alleging therein
that she had been subjected to cruelty and the dowry articles entrusted,
had not been returned by the accused. A detailed complaint was made
and preliminary evidence was produced before the court. The
complainant (petitioner) herself appeared as CW1. After considering
the preliminary evidence, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate decided to
summon the accused to face trial for offence under sections 406 and
498-A IPC. One of the accused was unmarried sister-in-law of the
Crl. Revision No.1424 of 2008 2
complainant, namely, Sukhjinder Kaur. Said Sukhjinder Kaur preferred
a revision petition before the court of Sessions challenging her
summoning by the Magistrate. She inter alia submitted that she had
nothing to do with the crime. She was pursuing her studies at Patiala
while her family was residing at Malerkotla. She being away from
home, could not have played any role as regards the matrimonial life of
the complainant. She had been roped in deliberately to put pressure on
the family being unmarried sister of husband of the complainant.
The Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that
there was no specific allegation against Sukhjinder Kaur and thus, set-
aside the order dated 2nd May, 2007, summoning Sukhjinder Kaur,
respondent No.1 herein, to face trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant against
respondent No.1 and thus, the order passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge is bad and deserves to be set-aside. According to the counsel,
once preliminary evidence had been produced showing complicity of
respondent No.1 in the crime, there was no question of setting-aside the
summoning order in respect of her.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that there is growing tendency in these days to inflate and
exaggerate the allegations to rope in all the relations of the husband.
According to the counsel, provision of Section 498-A IPC should not be
allowed to be misused for arraying innocent persons as accused.
Crl. Revision No.1424 of 2008 3
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
There can be no doubt that allegations levelled in the
complaint qua respondent No.1 are very general in nature. There is no
specific role attributed to her. Even otherwise it is unacceptable that
dowry articles may have been entrusted to unmarried sister of the
husband, who is pursuing her studies elsewhere. I, therefore, find no
ground to set-aside the order, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
point out any legal infirmity with the same.
The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 07, 2009
‘rajpal’
