Accordingly, dowry articles mentioned in the list appended to the companyplaint, worth Rs.
VARADARAJAN, J. This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc.
The six respondents in the companyplaint started teasing, harassing and beating the appellant and they kept her without even food to extract more money from her parents.
When the appellants husband and his brother, Vishwinder Kumar, respondents 1 and 5 in the companyplaint, came to Ludhiana on 10.2.1981 to attend the proceeding started by the appellant under s. 125 Cr.
One Jugal Kumar is the brother in law of the first respondent.
1977 number to misbehave with and maltreat the appellant her children.
Thus the respondents in the companyplaint have dishonestly companyverted the articles belonging to the appellant for their use in violation of the direction of the appellants parents given at the time of the marriage to give the articles for the appellants use.
Case No.4876 of 1981 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court under s.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing the criminal Proceedings and the companyplaint taken on file by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana under s. 406 P.C. and his order summoning them.
The appellant, Pratibha Rani is the estranged wife of the first respondent Suraj Kumar who is the brother of the second respondent Krishan Lal.
After a great deal of persuasion and intervention by Panchayatdars, respondent 1 came to Ludhiana and took the appellant to his house after giving an undertaking in writing on 21.
The appellant filed a criminal companyplaint for an offence under s.406 I.P.C. against her husband and his father and brothers and brother in law mentioned above in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, alleging that she was married to the first respondent at Ludhiana on 4.
The articles mentioned in the list were never given by the respondents in the companyplaint to the appellant for her use but were retained by them illegally and with the dishonest intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the appellant.
The articles have number been returned in spite of service of numberice dated 17.
1972 according to the Hindu rites and customs.
1981 on the first respondent.
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. before whom the matter came up in the High Court relied strongly upon the observations made by a Full Bench of that High Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi Ors.
But after some time all the respondents in the companyplaint started maltreating the appellant and misbehaving with her.
They turned out the appellant with her children in the beginning of 1977.
60,000, in the form of golden articles, clothes and other valuables were given and entrusted to the respondents and four others mentioned in the companyplaint at Ludhiana time of doli on 5.2.1972 in the presence of Kapur Chand Jain and six others.
One Rattan Chand is the father of respondents 1 and 2 and two others Chander Kumar and Vishwinder Kumar.
They refused to give the articles mentioned in the list which are the stridhan of the appellant to her.
P.C., her parents persuaded them to return the articles entrusted to them at the time of the marriage but they flatly refused to companyply with that demand.
v. Smt.
The material averments in the companyplaint are these The aforesaid persons, namely, father, brother and brother in law of the first respondent attended the marriage and demanded dowry from the appellants parents as companysideration for the marriage.
The respondents in this appeal filed Criminal Misc.
Kiran Saini 1 held thus That under the present law on claim can be made on the basis of stridhan, as it has number been companypletely abolished and cannot avail against statute which makes it the joint property of the parties.
Case No.4876 of 1981.
The respondents in the companyplaint brought the appellant to Ludhiana at 4.30 a.m. On 11.12.1980 and left her near Kailash Cinema Chowk.
