Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 252 (PNJ)

Parkasho Devi v. Mohinder Singh

2003-02-11

R.C.KATHURIA

body2003
JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J. - Parkasho Devi, petitioner-complaint has filed the present revision against the order dated 8.7.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the order dated 15.7.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra summoning the respondents-accused to face trial for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the respondents-accused were discharged. 2. In order to decide the present controversy, a few facts need to be noticed. Smt. Parkasho Devi, complainant was married with Rameshwar, elder brother of Mohinder Singh, accused on 10.3.1982 at Village Mathana, Distt. Kurukshetra. Said Rameshwar died on 8.2.1983. Thereafter, parents of the complainant and that of the deceased decided to marry the complainant with Mohinder Singh in the form of Karewa marriage as per custom prevailing amongst the Rod Bradari to which the parties belong. Accordingly, Mohinder Singh performed the rituals of Karewa Marriage on 10.6.1984 at Village Mathana. Thereafter, a female child was born from this wedlock on 3.8.1986, who died on the same day. On 18.9.1986, her husband Mohinder Singh and the other accused, namely, Mam Chand, father-in-law, Sona Devi, mother-in-law, Bimla Devi, sister-in-law and Dharam Pal, brother-in-law started harassing and exerting pressure on her to bring more dowry from her parents despite the fact that the dowry articles given by her parents at the time when she was married with Rameshwar had been entrusted to the above named accused on 10.6.1984, at the time she performed Karewa marriage with Mohinder Singh. In addition, her parents had also given Rs. 10,000/- to them on that occasion. The complainant expressed her inability to meet the demand made by them. She was beaten by the accused on that day and ultimately she was turned out of the house. Efforts made by the parents of the complainant to bring rapprochement to enable the complainant to return to the matrimonial home brought no result. The accused even refused to return the dowry articles to her. It is also stated by the complainant in para 5 of the complaint that with regard to the incident of beating and demand of dowry which had taken place on 18.9.1986, the matter was reported to the Police and a case under Sections 498-A and 323 Indian Penal Code was registered against the above named accused. It is also stated by the complainant in para 5 of the complaint that with regard to the incident of beating and demand of dowry which had taken place on 18.9.1986, the matter was reported to the Police and a case under Sections 498-A and 323 Indian Penal Code was registered against the above named accused. Another case was registered under Section 406 Indian Penal Code It is for that reason the present complaint has been filed seeking prosecution of the accused under Section 406 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code 3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra initially called for the report of the Police under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). After the report was received, he recorded the statements of Parkasho Devi, complainant (PW-1) and her brother Ram Parkasho (PW-2) in preliminary evidence. On appraisal of the evidence led on record by the complainant, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that no evidence was made out against Dharam Pal and Bimla Devi, accused. However, he found sufficient evidence to summon Mohinder Singh, Mam Chand and Sona Devi to face trial under Section 406 Indian Penal Code as per order dated 15.7.1988. Aggrieved by that order, Mohinder Singh, Mam Chand and Sona Devi challenged the same by filing Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1988 which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and they were ordered to be discharged as per order dated 8.7.1989. Hence, the present criminal revision. 4. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the petitioner at the time of arguments. I heard counsel representing the respondents at length. 5. The grounds stated in the petition have been taken into consideration. The order dated 8.7.1989 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra has been challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the evidence of the complainant with regard to non-return of dowry articles entrusted to the accused has not been taken into account and for that reason the order suffers from patent illegality on the face of record. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions made the statements of Parkasho Devi and Ram Parkasho have to be scrutinised. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions made the statements of Parkasho Devi and Ram Parkasho have to be scrutinised. Parkasho Devi in her deposition had stated that at the time she had performed Karewa marriage with Mohinder Singh, accused, the dowry articles which were earlier given to her at the time of her marriage with Rameshwar continued to remain in the custody of her in- laws. In addition, her father had given cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of her Karewa marriage. In her testimony, she had not given any detail of the dowry articles given. She had also not mentioned in what manner the dowry articles have been misappropriated by the above named accused. Merely because Rs. 10,000/- were given in cash to the parents of Mohinder Singh as stated in the complaint it cannot be construed that it was a part of the dowry articles. She had not even stated that any demand for return of the dowry articles was made by her from the accused. The testimony of Ram Parkasho is also on these lines. From his statement as well the ingredients of offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code are not clearly spelled put on record. 7. The evidence being vague, discrepant and unreliable, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra was fully justified in rejecting the same and setting aside the order dated 15.7.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra whereby the respondents-accused were summoned to face trial under Section 406 Indian Penal Code Thus, there is no illegality of irregularity in the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, the petition is without merit and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.