- (1.) B. P. Singh, J. Hansraj Chaudhary, the applicant No. 1, is the husband of Smt. Sarita, the opposite party. The applicants Prem Raj and Smt. Sheela are the brother and sister-in-law of the applicant, Hansraj Chaudhary, respectively. Hansraj Chaudhary was married with Smt. Sarita on 2-5-1989 at Jhansi' After sometime the relations between the couple became strained and a complaint under Section 406, 498-A, 420/34, I. P. C. was filed by Smt. Sarita against Hansraj Chaudhary, Prem Raj and Smt. Shila Devi. The case was registered as Complaint Case No. 49 of 1991 in the court of C. J. M. , Jhansi. The allegations in the complaint were that the accused had treated the com plainant with cruelty and had kept and mis- appropriated the valuables which belong to the complainant because these valuables were given to her at the time of marriage by her parents and other relations.
(2.) THE C. J. M. recorded the stated of Smt. Sarita on 3-5-1991 and the statements of Ram Sewak Bairagi and Bhagwan Das under Section 202. Cr. P. C. After going through the complaint and the statements of the com plainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate summoned at all the three accused persons for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, I. P. C. Summons were issued to all the three accused fixing 19-10-91. It appears that a telegram was received in the court of C. J. M. , Jhansi on 30-12-91 from the applicant, Prem Raj. Consequently, a bailable warrant was issued against Prem Raj fixing 24-1-92 in the case. As the summons against remaining two persons were not served, orders to issue fresh summons were also passed. It is against these two orders dated 11-9-91 and 23-12-91 that the applicants have come in revision.
(3.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged at the admis sion stage and I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not disputed that the marriage took place at Jhansi on 2-5- 1989. The complaint allegations as well as the statements of the witnesses show that while the complainant went to live with Hansraj Chaudhary at Bhopal, she was treated with cruelty by the accused persons and the property i. e. T. V. Set, bed, Fridge and ornaments etc. were not returned by the opposite parties although these articles belonged to the complainant. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the learned Magistrate had basis to summon these applicants- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406, I. P. C.;