J.B.GARG, J. - (1.) NIHAL Kaur and Jetha Singh the parents of the husband have come forward and moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 19-12-1991 passed in a complaint instituted for offences under Section 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) BHUPINDER Kaur was married to Balwinder Singh on 9-9-1989 at Mukerian. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs. 11,000/- was handed over to Jetha Singh, the father-in-law and ornaments were handed over to Nihar Kaur, the mother in law. It has been alleged that the dispute between the complainant wife and her husband Balwinder Singh arose because the husband considered the dowry as insufficient as he did not receive a scooter at the time of the marriage. It has also been alleged that the accused wanted a sum of Rs. 70,000/- mainly for the purpose of purchasing the land. On behalf of the petitioners it has been pointed out that in the entire complaint (Annexure P-1) there is no mention as to what were the ornaments and how these were handed over to Nihal Kumar, the mother-in-law. It has also been stressed that it was not convincing that the marriage was performed on 9-9-1989 and the alleged valuables could remain with the petitioners till 10-12-1990 when the present complaint was instituted. It has also been stressed that the two petitioners, are very old and constitute a cultured family and they have been falsely roped in by the complainant.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the required sanction under Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has also not been obtained by the complainant and for this reason also the impugned summoning order has no force. The conclusion is that the present petition No. 4568-M of 1992 succeeds and the summoning order and proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners only are hereby quashed.;