Seema Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

This case has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Codeâ€)

for quashing the cognizance order dated 06.11.2015 in Complaint Case No.1385 of 2015, Smt. Kamlesh vs. Surendra & another, under Sections 323,

452, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Gangnaher District Haridwar pending before the Court of Learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate

Roorkee, District Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as “the Caseâ€) and order dated 17.01.2019 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Roorkee

District Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.132 of 2017, Seema Devi vs. State.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

The case was instituted on the complaint filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner and co-accused Surendra Singh. According to the complaint,

respondent no.2 and Surendra Singh were married on 9.03.1993. The petitioner knowing that Surendra Singh is married, got the marriage invitation of

her printed, distributed and on 12.06.2015 respondent no.2 married Surendra Singh in village Mzahidpur Satiwala Nirnkari Bhawan in the presence of

Roki and other persons. Thereafter petitioner started staying with the husband of the complainant, namely, Surendra Singh in village Salempur

Rajputana. According to the complaint, the complainant tried her level best to stop the marriage between petitioner and co-accused Surendra Singh,

but she could not succeed. On 19.06.2015 she also gave a letter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar against petitioner and co-accused

Surendra Singh but police did not take any action. On 22.06.2015 the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 gave a notice through her Advocate to

petitioner and co-accused requiring them to cancel their marriage dated 12.06.2015. In retaliation to it, on 29.06.2015 at 07:00 p.m. petitioner alongwith

co-accused Surendra Singh entered into the house of the complainant and beaten her up with fists, abused and threatened her to life. In this complaint

after inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Code, vide impugned order dated 06.11.2015, the petitioner has been summoned to answer the

accusation under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and co-accused Surendra Singh, who is husband of the complainant, has also been summoned to

answer the accusation under Sections 323, 452, 494, 504, 506 IPC. A revision was preferred by the petitioner against it, which was registered as

Criminal Revision No.132 of 2017, Seema Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand. This revision was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2019 by learned IInd

Additional Session Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar. Aggrieved, the instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is an Advocate. She has been helping Surendra Singh, husband of the complainant

in his litigations. She did not marry Surendra Singh. It is a false case. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

In her complaint, the respondent no.2 has leveled categorical allegations. She is specific about the date of marriage of the petitioner with her

husband Surendra Singh. She has categorically stated in the complaint as to when she was assaulted by the petitioner and co-accused Surendra Singh.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, while passing the summoning order dated

11.2015, in the case has taken into consideration the deposition of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code as well as the statements of the

witnesses examined at the stage of 202 of the Code. These witnesses have corroborated the statement of the complainant. Not only this, a very

important document has been discussed in the summoning order, which is a letter written by Senior Superintendent of Police, after inquiry into the

matter, addressed to a member of National Commission for Women, Government of India. A reference has been made that in that inquiry the father

of the petitioner had admitted that petitioner and Surendra Singh married on 12.06.2015.

Nothing has been shown so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. This Court is of the view that no interference is warranted

and the instant petition deserves dismissal.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.