SAMSHER ALIAS LALA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Samsher Alias Lala And Others
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J. -
(1.) HEARD . By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2640 of 2010; State vs. Samsher and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered with police station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar pending in the court of First Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 / complainant with police station Kotwali Manglaur in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. It was stated in said FIR that Parveen, daughter of the complainant, got married to Irshad about 31/2 years ago. Soon after the marriage the petitioners including husband of his daughter, started harassing Parveen demanding colour television and a motorcycle. The complainant / respondent No. 2 could not fulfill said demand and therefore her daughter was subjected to cruelty and beaten up by them. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners viz. Samsher alias Lala, Imran, Altaf and Mustkeem, including husband of Parveen, in respect of offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge sheet against Irshad was also filed as an absconder. The trial of Irshad was separated from that of the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is father -in -law, who is an old person and petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are brothers -in -law JETH of daughter of the complainant. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place on 17.12.2009, but the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was moved on 04.03.2010 after about 31/2 months of the alleged occurrence which makes the entire story doubtful. It is also pleaded that on the application being moved under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate referred the matter to Women Help Line, on which a report was submitted to the Magistrate clearly stating that respondent no. 2 wants share in the property of the petitioners. Said fact has emerged from the report submitted by Women Help Line which is annexed with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to pressurize the petitioner for parting share in favour of his daughter, this false FIR was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners. It is further submitted that Parveen and her husband Irshad used to live separately from petitioner nos. 2 to 4.
(3.) MR . M.A. Khan, Brief Holder opposed the petition as also Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant / respondent no. 2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.