Sanjay and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent No. 1.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have prayed for quashing of criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1329 of 2005, relating to offence punishable under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act).

Facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 Smt. Mithilesh filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur against the applicants with the averments that the marriage of respondent No. 2 and the applicant Sanjay was solemnized six years back and in the marriage her parents gave sufficient dowry as per their status. However, the applicants were not satisfied with the dowry given in marriage and they started harassing her mentally and physically for the same. It is further alleged that before one year of filing of complaint, the applicants committed marpeet with her and ousted her from the house along with her two children for the demand of ` 50,000/-. Thereafter on 29.6.2005 the applicants came to her parental house, hurled abuses on her and also beaten her with kicks and fists. With the same averments, the present complaint was filed by the complainant in the court. In support of her complaint, she got examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Chandrapal and Smt. Phoolwati were examined. After hearing learned Counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide order dated 25.7.2005, summoned the applicants and subsequently impugned criminal proceedings were initiated against them. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

A Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied.

From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses, namely, Chandrapal and Phoolwati, recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as 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 and the statement recorded Under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicants have rightly been summoned by the trial court and the impugned criminal proceedings are accordingly rightly initiated against them. 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 C482 application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 6.10.2005 stands vacated.