Separate Revision Petitions were filed by Jai Singh, Ran Singh and Suman taking the stand that there is numberoffence made out so far as they are companycerned.
It was stated in the companyplaint that Saroj got married to Jaswant on 14.4.1994 and that she was harassed for dowry by the aforesaid accused persons.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that numbercase was made out against aforesaid accused persons and directed that proceedings would companytinue only against Jaswant.
Underlined for emphasis The High Court numbered that police had earlier registered a case and had sent cancellation report and thereafter the companyplaint was filed by Kurra Ram who appeared as PW 1, as his son Rajesh appeared as PW 2 and Saroj as PW 3.
The order dated 4.11.2003 disposing of the revisions in the aforesaid manner was challenged by Kurra Ram in the Revision Petition before the High Court.
No.3089 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Revision Petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code which was filed before it by Kurra Ram since deceased and represented by his daughter i.e. respondent No.2 in the present appeal.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows A companyplaint was filed by the aforesaid Kurra Ram alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC by Jaswant son in law and husband of his daughter Saroj, Ran Singh and Raj Bala, the present appellants who were father and mother of Jaswant and two others namely, Jai Singh and Suman, the brother and married sister of Jaswant.
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, after recording preliminary evidence of the companyplainant, decided to proceed against all the accused persons for the alleged offences.
