- (1.) The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.02.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned SDJM, Mahendergarh, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused on an application filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. for facing trial under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC along with the accused already facing trial.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the complaint of Manju/respondent No. 2 against her husband Rajesh on the allegations that at the time of the marriage of the complainant with Rajesh her father had spent beyond his capacity on dowry, eatables, household articles and cash. It is further alleged that after the marriage Kamla Devi mother-in-law of the complainant, Ompati wife of Parmanand, aunt-in-law of the complainant, started taunting the complainant that her father had given nothing for them. As per the allegations in the FIR, she was forced to bring motorcycle, cash and gold articles as and when the complainant goes to her parental home, otherwise she was threatened to be killed. Despite the request of the complainant that her father is a poor man, her in-laws reiterated their demand. After this the brother of the complainant Rakesh took the complainant to her parental home. The police investigated the case and challan was presented against Rajesh/husband of the complainant only and the petitioners were given clean chit. However, after the statement of the complainant in the Court against the petitioners, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr. P. C. whereby the petitioners have been summoned.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Courts below is discriminatory and arbitrary because no reason has been given as to why the allegations against the petitioners were treated true and allegations against Parmanand as an afterthought. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that no specific allegation was made against the petitioners nor was any suspicion raised against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Rajesh on 02.03.2006. From the beginning complainant was not happy with the marriage because she disclosed to Rajesh that she wished to marry someone else but under parental pressure she had to marry Rajesh. On 20.03.2006, complainant suddenly went to her parental house and in concern to that, husband of the complainant, obtained a search warrant under Section 97/98 Cr. P. C. issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri on 04.07.2006 and while appearing before the Court, she stated that does not want to reside with her husband.;