PARKASHO DEVI Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARKASHO Devi, petitioner-complaint has filed the present revision against the order dated 8.7.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the order dated 15.7.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra summoning the respondents-accused to face trial for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the respondents-accused were discharged.

(2.) IN order to decide the present controversy, a few facts need to be noticed. Smt. Parkasho Devi, complainant was married with Rameshwar, elder brother of Mohinder Singh, accused on 10.3.1982 at Village Mathana, Distt. Kurukshetra. Said Rameshwar died on 8.2.1983. Thereafter, parents of the complainant and that of the deceased decided to marry the complainant with Mohinder Singh in the form of Karewa marriage as per custom prevailing amongst the Rod Bradari to which the parties belong. Accordingly, Mohinder Singh performed the rituals of Karewa Marriage on 10.6.1984 at Village Mathana. Thereafter, a female child was born from this wedlock on 3.8.1986, who died on the same day. On 18.9.1986, her husband Mohinder Singh and the other accused, namely, Mam Chand, father-in-law, Sona Devi, mother-in-law, Bimla Devi, sister-in-law and Dharam Pal, brother-in-law started harassing and exerting pressure on her to bring more dowry from her parents despite the fact that the dowry articles given by her parents at the time when she was married with Rameshwar had been entrusted to the above named accused on 10.6.1984, at the time she performed Karewa marriage with Mohinder Singh. In addition, her parents had also given Rs. 10,000/- to them on that occasion. The complainant expressed her inability to meet the demand made by them. She was beaten by the accused on that day and ultimately she was turned out of the house. Efforts made by the parents of the complainant to bring rapprochement to enable the complainant to return to the matrimonial home brought no result. The accused even refused to return the dowry articles to her. It is also stated by the complainant in para 5 of the complaint that with regard to the incident of beating and demand of dowry which had taken place on 18.9.1986, the matter was reported to the Police and a case under Sections 498-A and 323 I.P.C. was registered against the above named accused. Another case was registered under Section 406 I.P.C. It is for that reason the present complaint has been filed seeking prosecution of the accused under Section 406 I.P.C. read with Section 120-B I.P.C.

(3.) NONE has chosen to appear on behalf of the petitioner at the time of arguments. I heard counsel representing the respondents at length.