1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 1605    OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1678/2009]

  KARAMPAL KAUR  ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R Leave granted. During the pendency of the trial in a dowry case  

filed under Section 498-A of I.P.C., an application  under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was  moved by the prosecution for summoning Karampal Kaur as  an accused.  The said application was dismissed by the  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar vide his order dated  31.8.2007.

Against  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, a criminal revision was  filed  by  the  complainant  -  respondent  No.2  herein,  before  the  Sessions  Judge,  Muktsar.  The  learned

2

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muktsar while  accepting the revision petition, set aside the order  dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate  and allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.   

Against the aforesaid order, the appellant filed  a revision before the High Court. The High Court upheld  the  order  dated  1.4.2008  passed  by  the  Additional  District and Sessions Judge, Muktsar and dismissed the  revision petition.   

Aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the  order  passed by the High Court, the appellant has preferred  this appeal by special leave.  

This  Court  issued  notice  on  2.3.2009  and  in  pursuance  of  the  said  notice,  Mr.  Vivek  K.  Goyal,  learned counsel has appeared for the State of Punjab  and Mr. Arvinder Singh, learned counsel appeared for  respondent No.2.    

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for  the parties.  

In the entire statement of PW-1 Jagwinder Kaur,

3

the  only  allegations  against  the  appellant  is  that  goods, like suits, utensils, bedding etc. were kept by  her in box and Almirah. There is no other allegation  against the appellant in this case. This allegation, in  our  opinion,  is  hardly  sufficient  to  convict  the  appellant  for  the  offence  under  Section  498-A  of  Cr.P.C.  Compelling the appellant to face the criminal  trial on the basis of this allegation would be an abuse  of the process.

The impugned order of the High Court is totally  devoid of any merit and it is accordingly set aside.  Consequently, the summoning order passed under Section  319 Cr.P.C. against the appellant is quashed.   

The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the  aforementioned observations.

....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

....................J   (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)    NEW DELHI, AUGUST 24, 2009.