TEJ KAUR Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint copy Annexure P-1, and summoning order, Copy Annexure P-2, and all consequent proceedings against the petitioners pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka.

(2.) IN the complaint filed by the respondent against her husband Sarup Singh and petitioners Tej Kaur, Wassan Singh and Sukhdev Singh who are mother, father and the younger brother of her husband Sarup Singh respectively, it is alleged that she was married to Sarup Singh about twelve years back. She and her husband cohabited as husband and wife and out of this wed-lock, a male child Balbir Singh was born about 10-1/4 years back. Her marriage had been solemnised with Sarup Singh by her maternal uncle, who gave her articles of dowry valuing Rs. 80,000/-. According to her, it was made clear to the petitioners and her husband that these articles will be for her exlcusive use and benefit and that these were required to be handed over to her on demand. She lived for about six months happily but thereafter the behaviour of the petitioners changed and they started putting demand of fridge, television etc. from her parents. She added that the petitioners' behaviour towards her remained cruel for five-six years. She was eventually turned out of the house by the petitioners in three clothes after she was given severe beating. It was on 18.10.1987 that her father collected Gurbachan Singh, her maternal uncle, Lakhan Singh, Bishan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Sucha Singh, Member Panchayat, and Jarnail Singh and demanded the aritlces of dowry back from the petitioners but they flatly refused to return the same. She, therefore, prayed for the summoning of the petitioners and Sarup Singh under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code and awarding them susitable punishment.

(3.) IT is apparent that the assertions made by the petitioners have remained uncontroverted inasmuch as the respondent has not chosen to file any reply to the petition. Since the respondent has hereself admitted in the complaint, copy Annexure P-1, that she was deserted several years back, it has to be presumed that she must have been using the artiles of dowry during the intervening period. There could have been no ocasion in the circumstances for petitioners to use these articles. It has been held in Gulab Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 204, that where husband and wife lived together for eight motnhs after the marriage, the aritlce of dowry must have been given back to the wife by relatives during this period and hence no offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out against the relatives of the husband.