Basanti Devi and Deepak vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code of Criminal Procedure), the petitioners/applicants has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 17.6.2010 and the summoning order dated 21.7.2010 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 827 of 2010 State v. Amba Devi and Ors., relating to offences punishable u/s 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act).

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available in file.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Smt. Mamta Devi lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Betalghat with the allegations that she was married to Ram Singh Kathiat on 30.4.2008 and in the said marriage her father gave dowry more than his capacity but her husband Ram Singh, mother-in-law Amba Devi, sister of her mother-in-law namely Basanti Devi and her son Deepak (present applicants) were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and after the marriage all of them started harassing her mentally and physically for the same. It is further alleged that after 15 days of the marriage the applicants and other co-accused tortured her for bringing Rs. 2.00 Lacs and on their instigation, her mother-in-law ousted her from the house. With the same averments, present FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the I.O. and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the applicants and other in the court, on the basis of which, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital vide his order dated 21.7.2010 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 of Act and also summoned the applicants. Against the said charge sheet and summoning order dated 21.7.2010, the applicants have preferred the present application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court.

From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused persons and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicants have rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly.