Dharampal and another vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Hon�ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—It is pertinent to mention that none turned up on behalf of respondent no. 2 despit e sufficient service upon him so this Court rendered hearing to learned counsel for the applicants and learned Brief Holder for the State.

By means of this petit ion u/s 482 Cr.P.C. a prayer has been advanced to quash the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2007 passed by Addit ional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 995 of 2007 tit led as Yashpal Vs. Dharampal and another. It has also been prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the said complaint case.

The facts qua controversy are that Puja, daughter of applicants Dharampal and Sunit a, was espoused wit h private respondent no. 2 Yashpal in early 2006. After a couple of months, differences cropped up between two families on the question of dowry and Puja faced tyrannical and atrocious conduct at the hands of her husband Yashpal as well as other members of the matrimonial house. There was a demand of Rs. 15,000/-, in cash, besides a motorcycle and colour TV. She was cruelly dealt wit h by all the members of matrimonial home, who were having voracious demand of dowry, as stated hereinabove. All persuasions went in vain. On 15.07.2007 at about 09.00 p.m. Yashpal along wit h his father Vikram, mother Vimla Devi and sisters-in-law Meenu and Savit a came to the house of applicants and left Puja. All attempts made by applicants to woo the accused persons could not yield any result.

Feeling constrained, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on dated 07.09.2007 whereupon First Information Report against accused persons could be lodged on 28.10.2007. This Court is not aware as to what happened further as a result of lodging of the said First Information Report. However, when Yashpal and his family members got information that an attempt is being made to lodge First Information Report against them, a complaint was instit uted by Yashpal (husband) against the applicants on 24.09.2007 u/s 504, 506 IPC. He averred to have received a telephonic call on 19.09.2007 at 09.00 a.m. by Dharampal and Sunit a calling him, in person, to fetch Puja from their house. He accordingly reached to his in-law''s house on 21.09.2007 taking Ajab Singh and Babloo wit h him and asked to send his wife (Puja) wit h him. This offer, put forth by Yashpal, offended Dharampal and Sunit a, who abused in filthy style while his wife Puja was ready to leave her native house wit h him. Ajab Singh and Babloo, who were accompanying Yashpal strived to persuade the applicants but to no avail. Applicants insulted Yashpal and expelled him from their house along wit h a threat to kill him in future.

Complainant Yashpal and his wit nesses Ajab Singh as well as Babloo examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Learned Magistrate, having gone through the alleged facts of the complaint and statements of the complainant and his wit nesses aforementioned, took cognizance of the matter on 23.10.2007, which is impugned in this petit ion.

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that this launching of the complaint is an overt counterblast of the First Information Report lodged against him and his family members on 28.10.2007. Besides, in the statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. complainant Yashpal has deposed to have received a telephonic call of Dharampal on 19.09.2007 asking him to come to their home on 21.09.2007. At this telephonic call, he along wit h Ajab Singh and Babloo reached to the house of applicants on 21.09.2007 while statement of Ajab Singh recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. discloses that they reached the house of applicants on 19.09.2007.

This is a material contradiction rendering a reflection regarding falsit y of the facts stated in the complaint. It can be discerned that launching of the complaint by Yashpal is a sheer repercussion of lodging of the First Information Report against him and his family members. Otherwise also, the contents of the complaint do not concomit ant Section 504, 506 IPC. Merely allegation of extending threat to kill is not enough to attract the provision of Section 506(2) IPC. The depth and gravit y of the words uttered by the persons extending the threat is to be assessed from the circumstances, as to make offence u/s 506(2) IPC, which is completely lacking in the averments of the complaint, as has been stated herein. So this petit ion has merit s and accordingly, it is allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 23.10.2007 as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 995 of 2007 pending in the court of ACJM, Haridwar are hereby quashed.