KHUSHBAKHAT RAI Vs. SUNITA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHUSHBAKHAT Rai petitioners-1 and 5 others by means of this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seek the quashing of the complaint. Annexure P-1 and the summoning order Annexure P-2 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka.

(2.) SMT . Sunita Rani, complainant respondent is the wife of Kuldip Rai. Petitioner-1 and Smt. Bharawan Bai petitioner-3 are the parents of Kuldip Rai; Jagdish Rai; petitioner-2 is his brother and Smt. Usha Rani, is the wife of his brother and Smt. Rita Rani, petitioner-5 is his sister and Inder Pal, petitioner-6 is husband of petitioner-5. The complaint was filed by respondent-1 under Section 406 and 498-A, IPC. Accordingly to the allegations in the complaint, the marriage of the respondent with Kuldip Rai was solemnized on 20.11.1987 at Fazilka by means of Saptpadi ceremony. Out of this marriage, a daughter, Rinky was born. At the time of marriage, the respondent was given dowry articles, detailed in the list attached to the complaint. At the time of Doli, other articles, including ornaments, were presented to her. Out of these articles, the ornaments were entrusted to Khushbakhat Rai, Fridge and TV were entrusted to Jagdish Rai and Smt. Usha Rani; furniture etc. was entrusted to Kuldip Rai; utensils were entrusted to Rita Rani and her husband Inderpal and clothes and other stuff was made over to Smt. Bharawan Bai mother of Kuldip Rai. Items which were entrusted to Smt. Rita Rani and Inder Pal were taken by them to the house of petitioner-1. Petitioners-1 to 4 are living in the same house and Istri Dhan is in their possession. Smt. Rita Rani and Inder Pal are alleged to have been visiting the house of Khushbakhat Rai off and on and they have influence over Kuldip Rai and the other petitioners. There are allegations of harassment and further demand of articles and also about Kuldip Rai being drunkard and his giving beating to the complainant. There is also a reference to the convening of Panchayats and refusal of the petitioners to return the dowry articles.

(3.) THE case of Smt. Rita Rani and Inder Pal, however, is on different footing. The only allegation against them is of harassment and of their taking the articles of dowry to the house of the husband after marriage. Admittedly, Rita Rani and Inder Pal are living at Ganganagar, away from the house of the complainant's in-laws. Even if it may be accepted that the dowry articles were handed over to Rita Rani and Inder Pal, they were meant to be delivered at the complainant's matrimonial home and since it is specifically stated in the complaint that these articles were taken to that house, these persons had discharged their trust. The mere visits of Rita Rani and her husband to complainant's in-laws' house are obviously in the nature of social visits and not with an ulterior motive. The complainant feels that they have influence over Kuldip Rai and it is for that reason only that they have been implicated. Their prosecution is clearly with an oblique motive. The continuation of the impugned complaint against them amount to abuse of process of the Court. I hereby allow criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned complaint and the summoning order qua Smt. Rita and Inder Pal.