Nishikant Rai vs Special J.M.-II and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order dated 13.2.2006 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2026 of 2005, Smt. Sangeeta Mittal v. Nishikant Rai and Ors., u/s 406/498-A/323/504 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act {hereinafter to be referred as the Act}, pending before the court of Special J.M. II, Dehradun.

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. Sangeeta Mittal earlier moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case. The averments made therein were that she was married with the petitioner on 6.7.1999 as per Hindu RITES and it was a second marriage of both the parties. Out of the said wedlock, a girl Km. Nandini born out on 26.9.2001. At the time of marriage, Rs. 1.21 lacs in cash and Rs. 12,000/- were spent in the marriage. However after the marriage, the petitioner and his parents started harassing her physically and mentally for bringing lesser dowry and demanded a Car. The petitioner used to utter filthy abuses to her and her family members and also used to commit physical cruelty upon her. On 25.5.2002, the petitioner left the complainant along with her daughter on the pretext of his transfer at Baroda and assured him that he would call them and the petitioner also took the entire Stridhan at Baroda. Since then she is residing at her parental house. On 23.1.04 the petitioner came at her parental house and when she demanded her Stridhan, he became furious and started committing Marpit with her and hurled filthy abuses. The complainant herself was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while S Mt. Kamla Rani was examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and also produced some documentary evidence. Vide order-dated 13.2.2006, the Special J.M.-II, Dehradun summoned the petitioner u/s 406/498-A/323/504 and 3/4 of the Act. Hence this petition.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 thereby denying the allegations made in the petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him 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 complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, the statement of the complainant and that of the witness recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 406/498-A/323/504 IPC and 3/4 of the Act are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioner 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 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 Cr.P.C., 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 complaint as well as the statements of complainant and that of the witness u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has 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 25.4.2006 is vacated.