U.S.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) BY moving this application under Section 482 Cr. PC. the applicants have prayed for quashing the criminal complaint and its entire proceed­ing in case No. 286 of 1996 under Sections 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. Do wry Prohibi­tion Officer, Agra v. Yogesh Chhibbar and others pending before A.C.J.M. II, Agra as well as the summoning order dated 4- 2-1994.
(2.) IT appears that the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kanchan Chhibbar moved an application before District Probation Of­ficer/Dowry Prohibition Officer, Agra al­leging that she was married three years ago with Yogesh Chhibbar applicant No. 1. Her husband opposite party No. 1, father-in-law opposite party No. 2, mother-in-law opposite party No. 3 and sisters-in-law opposite party No. 4 and 5 started demand­ing dowry and therefore, action be taken against them. The Dowry Prohibition Of­ficer made enquiry and ultimately filed a complaint against the applicants before A.C.J.M. 1st Agra. On receipt of the above complaint the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 26-3-1994 registered a case and summoned the accused persons (ap­plicants) fixing 7-5-1993 for appearance. The applicants preferred revision before Sessions Judge, Agra against the above summoning order. The Criminal Revision No. 263 of 1993 was decided by IInd Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Agra, vide his order dated 10-1-1994. He allowed the revision, set aside the order of A.C.J.M. and remanded back the case to the Trial Court for passing fresh order for summoning the accused after applying his mind. There­after, vide order dated 4-2-1994 the A.C.J.M. again summoned the applicants under Section 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. The above summoning order as well as proceeding arising out of it have been sought to be quashed. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. None appeared from the side of opposite party No. 2 despite of sufficient personal service on her.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that cog­nizance was taken by the Magistrate and the applicants were summoned on com­plaint filed by Dowry Prohibition Officer, but he had no right to file the complaint and therefore, the summoning of ap­plicants was wrong. He also placed reliance on the provisions of Section 7 Dowry Prohibition Act.;