J.S.SEKHON,J - (1.) THE husband filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashment of the criminal complaint filed by the father-in-law Mukhtiar Singh under Section 406 I.P.C. as well as the order dated 2nd November, 1987 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for summoning him to face trial under Section 406 IPC.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Smt. Manvinder Kaur daughter of Mukhtiar Singh complainant was married with Harpal Singh on 10th October, 1983 at Ludhiana. After the marriage both the spouses cohabited together in Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana. The parents of the petitioner forced the complainant to give some dowry to Harpal Singh accused, as the latter had made a condition precedent for marring Smt. Manvinder Kaur. The husband along with his parents continued trial treating her on the grouse of having brought less dowry. Ultimately, the complainant party had to buy a second hand scooter bearing Registration No. DLX-7301 are gave it to Harpal Singh on the understanding that he will behave properly with the daughter of the complainant. Still Harpal Singh continued torturing his wife thereafter and raised a demand for gold Kara and gold ring for himself and for his mother respectively. When the complainant failed to satisfied the unreasonable demand of Harpal Singh, the latter turned cut Smt. Manvinder Kaur from his house in the month of July, 1984 after giving her severe beating but the matter was reconciled with the intervention of some relations and respectables. The husband, however continued mal-treating the wife and ultimately turned her out from the house in the month of March, 1985. She was then pregnant and gave birth to a female child at her parents house. Harpal Singh, however, refused to see his wife or the child unless the above referred items of dowry were given. Under these circumstances, the father of Smt. Manvinder Kaur had to file a complaint under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC against Harpal Singh and his parents. The trial Court vide order dated 2nd November, 1987 after recording the statement of Mukhtiar Singh complainant, Smt. Manvinder Kaur and Om Parkash, summoned all the accused to face trial for the offence under Section 406 IPC only. The learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to make out a case for quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground that only Smt. Manvinder Kaur was competent to file the complaint under the provisions of Section 198 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. There appears to be no force in this contention as the provisions of Section 94 only bar the Court to take cognizance of matrimonial offence figuring in Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except at the instance of the aggrieved spouse. Thus, there is no bar for filing a complaint by the father of the wife against her husband and in laws regarding the mis-appropriation of her Istri Dhan.
(3.) THE next leg of the attack of the petitioner pertains to the factum that the allegations regarding, entrustment of property being too vague, no offence under Section 406 IPC could be made out even if the entire evidence of the prosecution is taken to be true. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in Balvinder Kumar and another v. Kashma Devi alias Shama Devi, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 67, as well as on the decision of this Court in Inderjit Singh and others v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 527 and Jasbir Kaur and others v. Kamaljit Kaur, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 532.;