HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint Annexure P-1 and summoning order Annexure P-3 for offences under Section 323, 506 Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case as set up in the complaint Annexure P-1 are that complainant Chander Kanta was married to Sarowar Kumar about 11 years back at Ambala City. She lived with her husband for about 8 years peacefully. Since she did not give birth to any child, Sarowar Kumar started maltreating her and threatened that he will not keep her with him unless she brought one V.C.R. and Rs. 40,000/- in cash. She was also harassed by her mother-in-law Ram Piari, sister-in-law Sneh Lata and brother-in-law Deepak. They threatened her to leave the house or she would be done to death. The matter was reported to Mahila Samiti, Delhi. After the decision of the Samiti her husband lived with her for two months at Delhi and then left for Ambala on receipt of a telephonic message that her sister was to be operated upon. On 30.7.1990 she came to Ambala to inquire about her husband who had not turned up since February, 90. She went to the house of her in-laws in Kanshi Nagar, Model Town, Ambala where she was given beating by the petitioners and was then thrown in the sullage water drain. She was saved by Rajni wife of Anil Kumar and other passers-by. She was medically examined and then she lodged a complaint with the police on the basis of which case FIR No. 367 dated 1.8.1990 was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. When she engaged a counsel for the prosecution of her case, she learnt that police had challaned only Deepak Kumar and then she filed the complaint. The petitioners assailed the complaint and the summoning order on the ground that the matter was investigated by the police and challan was presented only against Deepak Kumar. The complaint had been filed after one year and two months of the occurrence and the version given in the complaint was contradictory to the version reported to the police. The allegations in the complaint were vague and unspecific as it was not disclosed as to what weapons were used nor any specific injury was attributed to any of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate did not apply his judicious mind while passing the summoning order on the sole testimony of the complainant without even examining the medico-legal report.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;