Harbans Singh And Anr. vs State (Delhi Administration) And ...
1990 Latest Caselaw 546 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

(1) Shri Harbans Singh and his wife Darshan Kaur have filed this petition under Section 482 of code of criminal procedure seeking quotient of order dated September 21,1939 of Shri N.P. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. By the impugned order the Magistrate has held that the petitioners arc to be proceeded against for an offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code.

(2) Smt. Gursharan Kaur has brought a complaint against the petitioners and her husband Gursharan Singh for an offence punishable under Section 6 Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. The Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence and came to the prima facie view that certain dowry items are still in possession of the accused Gursharan Singh and possession of the dowry items by Harbans Singh and Darshan Kaur, parents of Gursharan Singh was for the benefit of Gursbaran Kaur and thus be passed an older of summoning Gursharan Singh to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3) The complainant being aggrieved from this order filed a criminal revision in the Sessions Court for getting an order of summoning the said parents also to face the offence under Section 6 of the said Act. The said revision petition was allowed by the Addition Sessions Judge and directions were given for proceedings against these petitioners for the said offence.

(4) The petitioners filed criminal Miscellaneous (M) 962 1985 challenging the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge which came to be dismissed by the High Court on January 7, 1988.

(5) Gursharan Singh. however, filed Cr. Misc. (M 340/88 seeking quotient of the proceedings. Vide judgment dated March 27,1989.1 partially allowed the said petition and held that offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was barred by limitation and neither Gursharan Singh nor his parents were to face trial for the said offence but from the facts it was found that prima facie the said three accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and directions were given for proceeding against the accused for the said offence.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no independent finding baa been given by the learned Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that petitioners are also possession of any dowry articles and thus Magistrate could not have proceeded against the petitioners in this case on the basis of judgment of this court. He has urged that petitioners were not parties in the proceedings in which this court has given the finding that petitioners were also to be proceeded against for an offence punishable under section 406 Indian Penal code.

(7) I have gone through the records of the lower court and also the orders made by the previous Magistrate, the impugned order and the orders made by the Additional Sessions Judge and by this Court. It is evident that even the Additional Sessions Judge who beard the petitions has opined prima faeie that the dowry articles are also in possession of these petitioners. So, the Magistrate could not have come to any other conclusion this question of facts as the superior court after hearing the petitioners has given a finding that there exists prima facie evidence that the dowry articles are not only in possession of these petitioners but also in possession of Gursbaran Singh. It is this finding of fact given after hearing the parties that the court is to see whether an offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code stands made out or not This court has already given a finding on this aspect may be the petitioners were not parties to the said proceedings The finding which was given by the Additional Sessions Judge to which the petitioners were parties remains in force and that finding was also endorsed by this Court after bearing the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous (M) 962/85 filed by the petitioners which was dismissed on January 7,1988. So, in conclusion, it is clear that petitioners cannot challenge this prima facie finding given on facts by filing any fresh criminal miscellaneous petition. Hence, I held that the petitioners have to face the trial Along with Gursharan Singh for and offence punishable under section 406 Indian Penal Code. I dismiss this petition as well as a application in limne.