SUCHA SINGH Vs. HARPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under section 482, Code of Criminal procedure, the order dated September 28, 1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka (Annexure P -2) is sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE parties were married on May 13, 1976 but on account of matrimonial discord, they have separated. The respondent -wife filed a complaint purporting to be under sections 405, 406, 420 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner (husband) and his parents with the allegation, the salient features of which have been noticed in the impugned order itself. The main allegation is that at the time of the marriage between the parties, various items of dowry including some jewellery had been given. The respondent -wife resided with the petitioner for about 11 months during which period a son was born to her who is now about 4 -1/2 years old. It was alleged that the petitioner and his parents started torturing the respondent and turned her out of the house with a direction to bring Rupees ten thousand on pain of death. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner and his parents is that they have refused to return the articles of dowry including the jewellery in spite of various demands. The learned trial Court recorded preliminary evidence of the complainant and some witnesses and passed the impugned order summoning the petitioner and his parents for an offence under section 406, Indian Penal Code. The order is impugned.

(3.) THE sole point for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case are covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court as reported in Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 372. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the said authority fully covers the present case and the learned trial court acted erroneously in summoning the petitioner and his parents for an offence under section 406, Indian Penal Code, giving a complete go -by to the dictum of Vinod Kumar Sethi's case (supra). In these circumstances, there is no alternative but to quash the impugned order dated September 28, 1982, and it is ordered accordingly. Petition allowed.