SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. HARJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Claim for quashing of the complaint Annexure P. 1 having been dismissed as withdrawn on 22nd November, 1988, Cr. Misc. 8580-M of 1988 can be proceeded with only in regard to the summoning orders Annexures P. 2 and P. 3.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent wife referred to the observa-tions made in Subhag Rani v. Dharam Pal, 1985 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 162 and urged that the revision against the summoning orders foresaid being legally maintainable, quashing petition against them does not He. There is absolutely no merit in the argument advanced because in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947 it was observed by the Supreme Court, "thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside; where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. " Quashing petition is thus competent against the summoning orders Annexures P. 2 and P. 3.

(3.) SUMMONING order Annexure P, 2 is obviously illegal because the complainant had not produced before the learned trial court any sanction from 'the District Magistrate in terms of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohi-bition Act, 1976.