SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurwinder Kaur vs Kulvir Kaur And Others on 2 August, 2018

CRM-M-33003-2018 -1-


Date of decision:-2.8.2018

Gurwinder Kaur


Kulvir Kaur and another


Present : Mr.Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate
for the petitioner.



By way of filing the instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., petitioner Gurwinder Kaur seeks quashing of the order dated

1.5.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar

dismissing revision petition preferred by petitioner against order dated

8.1.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide which

the trial Court did not summon the accused respondents whose names

had been mentioned in the complaint.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant

Gurwinder Kaur had filed a private complaint for the offences under

Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B and 323 IPC against accused Nek

Singh, Swinder Kaur, Swaran Singh, Kulvir Kaur, Pritpal Singh,

Kulwinder Kaur and Darshan Singh on the allegations that she was

1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 01:33:46 :::
CRM-M-33003-2018 -2-

married with accused Nek Singh on 16.5.2011 with great pomp and

show at Maharaja Palace, Amritsar and at that time her parents had

given sufficient dowry articles; that at that time her mother-in-law

Sawinder Kaur, brother-in-law Swaran Singh, sister-in-law (jethani)

Kulveer Kaur, sister-in-law (nanad) Kulwinder Kaur, brother-in-

law(sister’s-in-law husband) Darshan Singh and Pritpal Singh had taken

part in all marriage ceremonies; that dowry articles were handed over to

all of them for giving the same to her in matrimonial home but they

misappropriated the said articles; that such accused used to harass and

maltreat the complainant so as to force her to bring more dowry articles;

that when the complainant unable to met those demands, she was turned

out of the matrimonial home; that she could arrange Rs.50,000/- with

great difficulty, which she gave to accused but her maltreatment

continued. According to the complainant, she had informed the police

but no action was taken, as such, she brought private complaint in the


After recording of preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate

vide order dated 8.1.2016 summoned the accused observing as under:

The evidence of the complainant has gone

unrebutted and unchallenged at this stage. The testimony of

the witnesses CW1, CW2 and CW3 sufficient ground is

made out against the accused No.1 to 3 namely Nek Singh,

Sawinder Kaur and Swaran Singh u/ss 498-A,

406/506/323/120-B IPC and it is ordered accordingly. No

sufficient ground is made out to summon the accused no.4

to 7 namely Kulveer Kaur, Pritpal Singh, Kulwinder Kaur

2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 01:33:47 :::
CRM-M-33003-2018 -3-

and Darshan Singh under aforesaid section. No specific

allegation levelled against them. Complaint against

accused no.4 to 7 is dismissed. There is general tendency to

rob of all family member u/s 498A IPC just to satisfy the

grudge against the husband. So complaint is hereby

dismissed against the accused no.4 to 7. Let accused no.1

to 3 are ordered to be summoned u/s 498A,

406/506/323/120-B IPC for 17.2.2016 on filing PF, copies

of complaint and list of witnesses within 7 days.

Aggrieved by the order vide which the trial Court had not

summoned accused Nos.4 to 7, the complainant had preferred a revision

petition to the Court of Sessions, which was marked to learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who had dismissed the revision

petition vide order dated 1.5.2018.

During pendency of the revision petition, petitioner

withdrew petition against respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7 and it was

dismissed as withdrawn. Respondents No.4 and 5 had appeared through

counsel. Respondent No.3 had refused to accept service. Therefore, the

revision was heard in his absence. The operative part of the judgment

dated 1.5.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is

as under:

7. Admittedly, during pendency of this revision, petitioner

has withdrawn the present revision against respondents

No.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. It is necessary to mention here that the

perusal of trial court file also reveals that the complaint is

3 of 6
13-08-2018 01:33:47 :::
CRM-M-33003-2018 -4-

also since withdrawn by the petitioner and she is residing

with her husband. Even otherwise, the statement of the

petitioner through her counsel regarding withdrawal of the

revision against respondents No.1, 2, 3, 6 7 makes it

clear that the petitioner has opted not to challenge the

impugned order under revision so far as it relates to the

summoning of respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7 meaning

thereby the petitioner has conceded the said order to be a

reasoned order to that extent. While advancing arguments

with regard to setting aside of the impugned order under

revision qua respondents No. 4 and 5, petitioner has pointed

out that the trial court has not passed a well reasoned order

which argument of the counsel for the petitioner is self

contradictory. In the given circumstances, it is in the fitness

of things to mention here that even in addition to the fact

that the petitioner has started residing with her husband and

has not contested her complaint before the trial court,

careful perusal of the impugned order under revision

reveals that while exonerating the respondents No.4 to 7,

the trial court has expressed its opinion though precisely by

stating that No sufficient ground is made out to summon the

accused No.4 to 7. No specific allegation is leveled against

them as such, complaint against those respondents was

dismissed. It is the grudge of the counsel for the petitioner

that such opinion/observation of the trial court is not an

expression of opinion in true sense. In this regard, it is

4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 01:33:47 :::
CRM-M-33003-2018 -5-

necessary to mention here that there is no hard line

principle to express opinion by the court in certain number

of words. It is only to be seen by the revisional court that

whether the court has applied its mind on the facts and

circumstances of the case as well as the evidence led during

inquiry proceedings so as to guide herself to pronounce the

order. Such appreciation of evidence and materials on file is

apparent from the impugned order under revision as the

trial court has specifically opined that no specific

allegations are there against the respondents No.4 to 7 and

that no sufficient ground is accordingly made out to

summon them. Accordingly, no ground is made out to

interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court.

8. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed

being without any merits. The impugned order dated

08.01.2016 passed by the court of Ms. Satwinderjit Kaur,

PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, is upheld. Trial

court file be returned back forthwith alongwith copy of this

judgment. The revision file be consigned to the record


I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides

going through the record I do not find any such illegality or infirmity

with the impugned orders much less apparent on the face of it. The

orders are certainly not in violation of settled principles of criminal

jurisprudence. I do not see any reason to upset the impugned orders.

5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 01:33:47 :::
CRM-M-33003-2018 -6-

The petition being without merit stands dismissed


2.8.2018 JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 01:33:47 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation