ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. - (1.) CRM . 1749/2003 : Miscellaneous application is allowed. Copy of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Jind dated 5.6.2001, whereby decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the husband, is taken on record. CRM. 1484-M/2001 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint dated 12.7.1999 filed under Sections 406/498-A/506 and 329 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been prayed that all consequent proceedings arising therefrom be also quashed including the summoning order, Annexure P-2 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar.
(2.) THE present complaint has been filed by the brother of Kiran Devi, who was married with Jagdish son of Balli Ram on 11.4.1995. It is stated in the complaint, Annexure P-1 that a sum of rupees five lacs was spent on the marriage and at the time of marriage, various jewellery items as well as refrigerator, T.V. and other house-hold goods were given to Kiran Devi. However, despite this, the husband of Kiran Devi along with the petitioners who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, and brother Subhash as well as his wife Santosh started harassing Kiran Devi. She was turned out of her matrimonial house as she failed to satisfy the accused by bringing more dowry. A Maruti car and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- are allegedly to have been demanded from Kiran Devi by the accused. After recording preliminary evidence, the leaned Judicial Magistrate, Hisar vide his order dated 31.10.2000 summoned the petitioners along with their son Jagdish, husband of Kiran Devi as well as his other son Subhash and his wife Santosh. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Kiran Devi has argued that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. It has been submitted by him that nowhere in the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners had demanded dowry from Kiran Devi. Moreover, it is not clear that to whom the dowry articles were entrusted. The names of the petitioners do not find mention as persons who had received the dowry articles. Thus, it is contended that as there are no specific allegations regarding demand of dowry from the sister of the complainant i.e. Kiran Devi during her stay in the matrimonial home, therefore, the summoning order, Annexure P-2 and the complaint, Annexure P-1 be quashed. In support of this submission, he relies upon Tej Kaur and Ors. v. Smt. Amarjit Kaur, 1993(1) RCR(Criminal) 299 (P&H) : 1993(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 130 to contend that where the allegations in the complaint are vague and are of general nature and no specific allegations are made by the complainant as to which article of dowry was entrusted to which of the accused, then the filing of the complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the same is liable to be quashed. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon Hardial Singh and Ors. v. Karamjit Kaur and Anr., 1994(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 196 to contend that as the allegations are vague and general in nature, therefore, the complaint and the summoning order are liable to be quashed. He also relies upon Kulwinder and others v. Asha Rani, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 358, wherein, it was held that in a case where omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused in respect of demand of dowry, harassment, torture and no specific date and month have been specified as to when the incident took place, then the complaint is vague in nature and the same was quashed.
(3.) IN the present case also, a perusal of the complaint as well as the summoning order reveals that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. The allegations are general in nature. It is not mentioned as to which articles of dowry were entrusted to which of the accused. In these circumstances, it is held that the allegations in the complaint, Annexure P-1 are an abuse of the process of the court. Moreover, the case of the petitioners is fully covered with the decision in Tej Kaur's case (supra) and Hardial Singh's case (supra). Consequently, the complaint, Annexure P-1 as well as the summoning order, Annexure P-2 are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.;