Shamim Jahan and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicants have prayed to quash the cognizance order dated 3.4.2007, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Case No. 566/2007, Kamar Ali v. Smt. Shamim Jahan & 5 Others, u/s 147, 149, 427, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, as well as the entire proceedings of the said case.

Respondent No. 2/complainant Kamar Ali was served personally. Despite that, none turns up on his behalf.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the papers on record.

The background facts behind the controversy, as it appears, are that Smt. Shamim Jahan was married to Kamar Ali on 30.8.2003 as per Muslim rituals and ceremonies. Just a couple of years after the marriage, the matrimonial relations of the parties became sore and the wedded life of the couple could not remain peaceful. Smt. Shamim Jahan alleged beatings at the hands of her husband Kamar Ali. She got herself medically examined on 15.6.2006 and lodged an FIR against her husband and his other family members with the allegation of her beatings nay the demand of dowry. Thereafter police intervened in the matter, and the couple entered into a compromise and amicably resumed their matrimonial life. But it could not last long, and just few months thereafter Smt. Shamim Jahan was again beaten. So, after getting herself medically examined on 16.11.2006 at the Community Health Centre, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, she lodged an FIR on 21.1.2007 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other three members of her in-laws family.

After the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet No. 48/2007 on 7.3.2007 in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 190/2007 against Mohd. Haneef (father-in-law), Smt. Haseena (mother-in-law) and Kamar Ali (husband) for the offence of Section 498A IPC. However, the police did not find enough evidence against the accused persons for the offence of Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned all the three accused persons.

It has contended on behalf of the applicants that no sooner did the accused persons were summoned vide the impugned cognizance order, as a counterblast, the Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint on 23.3.2007 making allegations therein not only against Smt. Shamim Jahan (wife), but also against the rest of the applicants, who are close relatives of Smt. Shamim Jahan, like her brothers, married sister, father and brother-in-law.

A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.11.2006, on which date Smt. Shamim Jahan along with other applicants, armed with lathi and baton, came to the house of Kamar Ali and began to abuse him and his other family members and used obscene words. When resisted, Kamar Ali was allegedly beaten with lathi, and his parents were also beaten with kicks and fists.

Learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and his two witnesses, namely, Mohd. Sahid and Wazid u/s 202 CrPC, passed the impugned cognizance order.

After pondering over the allegations made in the complaint dated 23.3.2007, it is almost inconceivable that a lady Smt. Shamim Jahan along with her two brothers, one brother-in-law, married sister and father will go to the house of the complainant and will beat her husband and in-laws. The averments made in the complaint filed by Kamar Ali do not inspire confidence, and the same has been filed with the intention of taking vengeance from Smt. Shamim Jahan and her family members. The story appears to be concocted in counterblast to the chargesheet submitted against Kamar Ali and his parents upon the FIR lodged by Smt. Shamim Jahan. Hence, the impugned order of cognizance is liable to be quashed.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Impugned cognizance order dated 3.4.2007, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 566/2007 are hereby quashed.

Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly.