Bhagwan Das and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this petition moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the criminal complaint case No. 1021 of 2007 titled as Urmila Vs. Ganesh alias Guddu and others pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. A prayer has also been made to quash the order of cognizance passed in that complaint dated 27.04.2007 whereby all the applicants have been directed to stand trial for the offence u/s 498A, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In that order of cognizance accused Ganesh alias Guddu (husband), Bhagwan Das (father-in-law), Lakhi (mother-in-law), Laxmi (uncle-in-law), Neeraj (aunt-in-law) have been summoned. But out of these five, only four applicants have filed this petition. Husband Ganesh alias Guddu has not come up before this Court.

The background facts giving rise to the controversy are that Ganesh alias Guddu, son of Bhagwan Das espoused with Urmila six months before the date of filing of this complaint on dated 19.03.2007. After wedding, she began to reside with her husband in Transit Camp, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She has made allegations upon applicants that soon after marriage, their conduct was voracious and they began to make demand of Rs. 80,000/- from her parents through her. Their conduct towards Urmila was very atrocious and ultimately, she was expelled from her matrimonial house on 28.01.2007. She has also made allegations that once an endeavour was made to torch her but anyhow she escaped her life from the cruel hands of her tyrant husband. All efforts for reconciliation went in vain and ultimately, she was expelled from her matrimonial house, as stated above. So she filed the instant complaint wherein the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance impugned.

On the other hand, the version of learned counsel for the applicants is that Ganesh alias Guddu was in bad company and not having any regard and obedience to his father (Bhagwan Das), so he segregated his relations with him and accordingly, adverted the information in local daily newspaper ''Uttaranchal Darpan'' on 28.09.2007. Besides, he made a complaint against Ganesh alias Guddu (son), Ram Autar, Urmila and Nand Lal for the offence u/s 406, 504, 506 IPC on dated 04.10.2006 wherein it was also alleged that Ganesh alias Guddu has taken Rs. 80,000/- from his (Bhagwan Das) house without his consent and this money is being utilized for prospective marriage of Ganesh alias Guddu with Urmila. He also reported the matter to SHO, Kotwali, Rurdrapur on 26.09.2006 as well as to the Circle Officer on 28.09.2006 nay to Senior Superintendent of Police with the same facts. Learned Magistrate passed order of cognizance dated 26.10.2006 in the matter and summoned Ganesh alias Guddu, Ram Autar, Urmila and Nand Lal on dated 26.10.2006 for the offence u/s 504, 506 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that in the complaint made by Bhagwan Das as stated above, allegations are that Rs. 80,000/- were taken by Ganesh alias Guddu from his house without his consent on 18.10.2006 (apparently mistaken) because complaint was filed on 04.10.2006 while in the report to SHO, Circle Officer and Senior Superintendent of Police, it is mentioned that Rs. 80,000/- has been taken on 15.08.2006. Even for a moment, this date 15.08.2006 is believed with the assertions that the money was taken from the house by Ganesh alias Guddu without consent of his father and mother, then why father Bhagwan Das reported the matter after forty days to SHO of the Police Station and segregated his relations from his son by way of publication in local daily newspaper Uttaranchal Darpan on 28.09.2007 i.e. also almost after forty-two days.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Urmila after her marriage lived with her husband Ganesh alias Guddu. She never lived with applicants. This argument does not hold much water because all the applicants as well as Urmila and her parents, resided in very close vicinity i.e. called Transit Camp, Rudrapur. Their Wards may be different but the houses of all these persons are very close to each other.

Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the precedent of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, . In paragraph 28 of this judgment reads as under:

Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

In the opinion of this Court, this approach should have been adopted by the learned Magistrate while passing the order of cognizance dated 26.10.2006 on the complaint filed by Bhagwan Das. In the impugned order of cognizance, this Court finds that it is interfereable only to the extent of implication of Laxmi and Neeraj and not regarding rest of the applicants. Rest of the facts is to be analyzed during trial before the court below.

So in view of the above, impugned order of cognizance as well as proceedings of complaint case No. 1021 of 2007 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar is quashed only in respect of Laxmi (applicant No. 3) and Neeraj (applicant No. 4) while petition of Bhagwan Das and Lakhi is dismissed.

Let the information be sent to the court below for proceedings ahead in the matter qua Bhagwan Das and Lakhi.