ADHARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is maternal uncle of Varinder Singh, who was married to respondent No. 1 on 29.1.1995. One daughter was born out of the wed-lock.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a complaint on 12.3.2001 alleging, inter alia, that a sum of Rs. 1 lac was handed over to the petitioner on an understanding that it was Istridhan and the same was misappropriated by him. The petitioner and other accused were not happy with the dowry and also scolded the complainant. On 25.4.1996, all the accused started demanding more money. On 13.8.1999, complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home. This petition has been filed for quashing on the ground that the petitioner was living separately and had just gone in the marriage party and any articles, which are claimed to be Istridhan, even if taken to have been given to the petitioner, would have been handed over to the complainant or her family members and there is no chance of any such item continuing with the petitioner, even after six years of marriage, particularly, when the complainant herself had separated from the matrimonial home, more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint. If it would have been otherwise, dispute would have been raised much earlier. Accountability for the Istridhan after six years of marriage will be that of husband or parents of the husband and not of distant relatives and thus, naming of the petitioner by the complainant was abuse of the Court's process and it is well-settled that when a distant relative is named, mere allegation of the complainant should not be taken to be on the face value, without adequate corroboration. It is also pointed out that allegations in the complainant about Istridhan are vague. In para 1, it is mentioned that dowry gifts and presents were handed over to the accused, which were to be treated as Istridhan, is an omnibus allegation, as gifts to relatives are not Istridhan.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the complainant, who submits that since an averment has been made in the complaint, summoning of the petitioner was justified and correctness of the allegation cannot be gone into in a petition for quashing. It is also submitted that order of summoning was passed on 2.5.2001, while this petition was filed on 31.7.2002 and since revision petition was competent, this petition should not be entertained.;