JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the
application filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C'). Appellants have filed the
petition for quashing criminal proceeding against them in
Complaint Case No. 896 of 1994 subsequently numbered as
Criminal Case No. 931 of 1995 relating to alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 494, 120B and 109 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'Dowry Act')
pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Varanasi. The prayer was rejected by the High Court being of
the view that the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial
expeditiously and at the time of framing charges, the appellants
can raise such points as has been raised in the present dispute.
Liberty was also granted to appear within one month from the
date of order before the trial court and to obtain bail.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as under:
Daughter of the respondent namely Madhulika Singh was
married to appellant No.1 Priya Vrat Singh. According to the
appellants, Madhulika started behaving rudely with her husband
and his family members as Priya Vrat was unemployed. Tension
between two reached to such an extent that Madhulika tried to
commit suicide on 7.3.1992. She thereafter started giving
repeated threats to commit suicide and appellant was seriously
harassed. From 16.7.1992 onwards appellant No.1 and
Madhulika started living separately in the same house. However,
shortly thereafter Madhulika left her matrimonial house and
started living in the parental house. In the meantime, appellant
No.1 filed a suit in Original Suit No. 188 of 1992 in the Civil
Court at Barabanki for dissolution of marriage between him and
Madhulika on the ground of cruelty and harassment meted out
to him by Madhulika. The said suit was decreed on 1.1.1993 ex
parte in favour of appellant No.1. Time for filing appeal against
the ex-parte decree dated 1.1.1993 under Section 28(4) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (in short the 'Marriage Act') expired on
31.1.1993. On 21.2.1993 after dissolution of marriage,
appellant No.1 re-married one Neha alias Sunita at Jalgaon in
Maharashtra on 2.3.1993. On 6.12.1994 respondent filed a
private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi
wherein all the appellants were arrayed as accused persons. It
was alleged that in 21.2.1993 appellant No.1 had re married in
Sankat Mochan Mandir, Varanasi. Allegations of dowry
harassment were also made. It was submitted that the marriage
attracted punishment under Sections 494, 120B and 109 IPC
and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act. On 1.6.1995 learned
Special CJM, Varanasi issued summons. Long thereafter, on
9.7.1996 Madhulika filed a Restoration Petition before the Civil
Judge for recalling the order of ex parte. On 9.8.1996, appellants
moved an application before the learned Special CJM, Varanasi,
and protested to the summoning order. However, the same was
rejected by order dated 9.8.1996. On 24.9.1996 petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed which was numbered as Criminal
Misc. Case No. 4501 of 1996. On 2.3.1997 the restoration
petition was allowed. On 25.10.2001 the High Court dismissed
the Criminal Misc. Case.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.