Dhyan Singh and Others vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure), is directed for quashing the charge sheet filed against the Petitioners, summoning order dated 13.1.2009 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 20 of 2009, State v. Sandeep and Ors., u/s 498A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act {hereinafter to be referred as the Act}, pending before the court of JM, Haridwar, District Haridwar.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2-Smt. Sukesh was married with Petitioner Sandeep Kumar on 06.07.2007 and the dowry was given by her parents beyond status, however soon after the marriage, the Petitioners started harassing her for getting Rs. 2.00 lacs in cash in dowry. When she resisted to it, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the Petitioners. On 11.10.2007, ultimately she was ousted by the Petitioners with the warning to come back only along with the demanded dowry. Even due to the atrocities committed by the Petitioner, her abortion was also done. Later on 17.8.08 at 9:10 PM, the Petitioners came at the parental house of the Respondent No. 2 and again demanded Rs. 2.00 lacs from her father and when he showed his inability, she was beaten by all the Petitioners and the Petitioners while going, also uttered abuses to her and also threat to her life. Thereafter the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the Petitioners u/s 498A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act, on the basis of which learned J.M. Haridwar on 13.1.2009 took cognizance and summoned the Petitioners under the aforesaid sections. Hence this petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has wrongly summoned them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2, the statements of the complainant and that of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, I find that the offences punishable u/s 498A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act are prima facie made out against the Petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the Petitioners to face trial.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as that 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 FIR as well as the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the Petitioners 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 application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 02.03.2009 is vacated.