According to the appellant, after her marriage she was living with her parents and thereafter with the companysent of the family members of her husband Rajesh Kumar their marriage was solemnized on 22nd September, 2010 in Hotel Residency.
In revision, the High Court has affirmed the order of the Sessions Court by the impugned order.
The appellant has alleged that private respondents have induced them to transfer a booth shop held by the appellants father as a power of attorney holder of one Suresh Singh.
The Sessions Court also pointed out that as the marriage of the companyplainant and Rajesh Kumar husband on 27th February, 2009 was a love marriage, there is unlikelihood of any demand of dowry by respondents number2 and 3 and also by the appellants husband Rajesh Kumar.
The Sessions Court vide order dated 15th October, 2015 allowed the revision on the ground that there was number even a single word mentioned by the appellant against respondents number2 and 3 regarding harassment of the companyplainant for dowry articles or any misappropriation of dowry articles by them.
According to the appellant, at the time of her marriage on 22 nd September, 2010 she and her husband Rajesh Kumar were given gold ornaments and other household articles.
The appellant alleged that when she was staying with her husband along with her mother in law second respondent and Jethani third respondent they were harassing her, demanding for more dowry and gold ornaments.
After companypletion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against Rajesh Kumar, husband of the appellant, and respondents number2 and 3.
On 11 th May, 2015 charges were framed against the respondents for the offence under Sections 406 and 498 A and the respondents pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Out of their wedlock a boy child was born on 5 th December, 2010.
The appellant filed a companyplainant before SSP, Chandigarh, based on which FIR NO.91 dated 15th March, 2014 was registered.
After the death of her father, the appellant requested her brother Devansh Sobti and accordingly Suresh Singh transferred the said booth shop to sisters of her husband Rajesh Kumar, namely, Bharti and Meena.
Respondents number2 and 3 challenged the order of framing of charge before the Session Court.
The Sessions Court referring to a publication dated 25th February, 2009 in the newspaper, Punjab Kesri, pointed out that the second respondent, mother in law of the appellant, had disowned her son Rajesh Kumar husband of the appellant way back on 25th February, 2009.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 12th September, 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM M No.23774 of 2018 in and by which the High Court affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the order of framing of charge against respondents number2 and 3 under Sections 406 and 498 A I.P.C. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.02.05 110819 IST Reason The case of the appellant is that her marriage was solemnized with Rajesh Kumar, son of the second respondent Kamla Devi on 27th February, 2009 and it was a love marriage.
