High Court Crim. Re. Petitioner challenges divorce and dowry complaint outcomes. Court held relations are strained and unhealed wounds require no judicial rubbing, denying interference and disposing petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.Rev.No.332 of 2000 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.332 of 2000
Date of Decision: 24 - 4 - 2009
Ranjit Kaur
.....Petitioner
v.
Mohan Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
*******
Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Ranjit Kaur was married with Mohan Singh on 4.5.1992. During subsistence of marriage, a female child was born. Accusedrespondents were demanding dowry and the father of the petitioner had gone to the house of the accused on 26.7.1994 to explain his position that he was not in a position to give dowry. Father of the petitioner was murdered by the respondents. They faced prosecution in the murder case and were sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
Mr.Gurcharan Dass appearing for the petitioner has submitted
Crl.Rev.No.332 of 2000 [2]
that in the appeal preferred by the respondents in this Court, Nasib Singh and Jaswant Kaur respondents were acquitted and the conviction of other two respondents was maintained. It has been further submitted that petitioner was granted divorce by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar. The complaint filed under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar on the ground that complainant admitted that at the time of marriage, no list of dowry articles was prepared. Complainant-petitioner had relied upon Ex.P1, the list of dowry articles. Complainant further admitted in the cross-examination that she has neither signed the same nor she is able to read contents of the same. The Court further held that the list is the solitary document relied upon by the complainant to say that dowry articles were given at the time of marriage.
Besides the reasoning given by the trial Court, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the present complaint was filed in the year 1996. Relations of the parties are very strained. Father of the petitioner was murdered by the respondents. Thereafter, she has got divorce.
Let the matter rest where it is as no useful gain will be made by rubbing the healed wounds. Thus, no interference is warranted.
Petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 24, 2009. JUDGE
RC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Petition regarding the divorce proceeding and dowry complaint is worthy of interference.
Ranjit Kaur
Mohan Singh
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
