Vimla Devi & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 28.6.2016, cognizance and summoning order dated 4.7.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2379/2016, State v. Gajendra Pratap Singh & Others, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The background facts of the case are that on 12.5.2016, respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law stating that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Gajendra Pratap Singh in the year 2009; the accused applicants were not happy with the dowry and gift given the marriage; accused persons were continuously making demand of more dowry; complainant's husband used to beat and torture the complainant because his demand was not being fulfilled; she was also being tortured by her husband for not giving birth to any child; she was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial house; husband of the complainant was pressurizing her for giving him divorce and was threatening to kill her if she failed to give the divorce. After investigation, police submitted the chargesheet and then the court below took cognizance against all the four accused persons to face the trial for the aforementioned offences.

Applicant no. 1 is the unmarried sister-in-law and the applicant no. 2 is the father-in-law of the complainant. Here it may be noted that this C482 application was filed in the year 2016 and yet no counter affidavit, either on behalf of the State or the complainant, could be filed till date. It may also be noted here that the husband Gajendra Pratap Singh is not an applicant in the present criminal miscellaneous application.

Learned Counsel for the applicants argued that it is clearly mentioned in the chargesheet that the applicant no. 2 (father-in-law) was not found involved in the crime and the complainant herself told the police that her father-in-law did not torture her nor did he make the demand of dowry, yet the Court below took cognizance against the said applicant and summoned him to face the trial which shows that the Court below passed the impugned summoning order in a mechanical and cyclostyled manner and without application of mind. Learned Counsel for the applicants further argued that the allegations made in the FIR are vague, sweeping and general; allegations are mainly against the husband; and no specific date or details of any incident, regarding harassment by the applicants for dowry has been mentioned in the FIR.

Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kartick Chandra Majee alias Kartik Chand Majee v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 13 SCC 747, wherein it has been held that where the criminal proceeding is instituted with ulterior motive, the proceedings should be quashed on the said ground. In another verdict relied upon by the learned Counsel rendered in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no specific allegation against the appellant-accused that they demanded any dowry and the contents of the FIR indicated that they were casually referred to and no prima facie case was made out against them.

Learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the complainant argued that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case which can be decided after the trial of the accused applicants. However, learned Counsels admitted the fact that the police gave clean chit to the applicant no. 2 and the Court below ought not to have summoned him to face the trial.

As regards the offence under Section 506 IPC, a bare perusal of the FIR shows that there is not even any allegation of criminal intimidation against the present applicants. Reading of the FIR also does not disclose any offence under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants. No specific date or details of any incident has been mentioned in the FIR. There is no specific allegation regarding any applicants except common general allegation against everyone.

Considering the materials on record and on a plain reading of the allegations made in the FIR, I am of the view that even if the same are considered on the face value, a prima facie case is not made out against the applicants.

Consequently, the present C482 application is allowed. Chargesheet dated 28.6.2016, cognizance and summoning order dated 4.7.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2379/2016, State v. Gajendra Pratap Singh & Others, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, so far as these relate to the present applicants, are hereby quashed. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.