Satendra Kumar Garg & another vs State of Uttarakhand and another

LOK PAL SINGH, J.

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing criminal complaint case no. 469 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC

and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and further to quash the summoning order dated 19.03.2018.

It is contended that marriage of the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 27.04.2009 at Firozabad with Hindu Rights and Rituals,

the applicant belongs to a reputed family and there was no demand of dowry. It is further contended that ex-party decree was passed in favour of

applicant no.1 in the year 2012. Before lodging the complaint the parties were called for mediation by the Women Cell but the mediation failed.

It is further contended that the criminal proceedings is a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by husband/applicant no.1. It is further contended

that the procedure under Sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with.

It is further contended that respondent no.2 is a practicing lawyer in the lower court, when the parents of applicant no.1 moved an application for

seeking bail before the Trial Court she misbehaved with them. A letter has also been placed on record written by the respondent no.2 wherein she had

made a request to the Bar Council, Haldwani that no advocate shall appear on behalf of the applicant. It is a factual question of dispute whether a

letter is written or not. This Court may take notice of it. The statements were recorded by the learned Magistrate and an inquiry was conducted as per

Section 202 Cr.P.C. The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. The learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after careful

perusal of the statements of the complainant and witnesses.

The jurisdiction under Article 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised discretionally for the ends of justice. The applicant did not point out any miss-carriage

of justice being done with the applicant.

Since, in view of this Court, prima facie case is made out against the applicant. From the perusal of the complaint and statements recorded under

Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and inquiry made by the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any illegality and jurisdictional error in the

impugned summoning order dated 19.03.2018.

The Magistrate has himself inquired into the matter, therefore, it was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to direct an investigation to be made

by the police officer. The contention of the learned counsel of the applicants has no force.

This Court also does not find any good ground for interference on the alleged ground that the respondent no.2 is a practicing lawyer. No complaint

whatsoever has been made with the police to provide any security of any apprehension that they may be assaulted by the respondent no.2.

9.While passing the summoning order dated 19.03.2018 the applicants were directed to appear on 07.04.2018, the applicants have not appeared before

the Magistrate concerned.

This Court is not inclined to interfere as there is no illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, accordingly, this criminal

miscellaneous application has failed and the same is dismissed.