CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Chote Lal and Others vs Smt. Rajbala

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 4 June 2010 · Citation: (2010) 06 UK CK 0074

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 323, 494, 498A, 504
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 361 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of the this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no 10258 of 2009 Smt Rajbala v. Ramesh and Ors., relating to offences punishable u/s 494, 120B, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station, Doiwala, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd Dehradun.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the respondent Rajbala with Ramesh (He is not petitioner) was solemnized in the year 2002. It is contended that Ramesh lives separately from the present petitioners. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 is father in law, petitioner No. 2 is mother in law, petitioner No. 3 and 4 are brothers in law, petitioner No. 5 is brother in law (NANDOI) and petitioner No. 6 is married sister in law. It is also stated that petitioner No. 5 and 6 live in district Bijnor.

3.

It is pleaded that the offence punishable u/s 494 I.P.C., can be said to have been attracted only as against the husband and not the petitioners. It is argued that there is no question of demand of dowry by the petitioners, if Ramesh is living with another woman after leaving the complainant as alleged by her. Lastly it is argued that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioners in the criminal case only because they are relatives of her husband.

4.

Admit the petition.

5.

Issue notices to respondent Smt Rajbala, who may file her counter affidavit within a period of six weeks. Meanwhile as an interim measure, it is directed that further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10258 of 2009, Rajbala v. Ramesh and others pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd , Dehradun are stayed, as against the present petitioners only, till the next date of listing. It is clarified that the proceedings may go on against Ramesh (husband). (The Stay Application No. 546 of 2006 stands disposed of).

6.

List after six weeks.