CHOTE LAL Vs. RAJBALA
LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-76
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 02,2012

Chote Lal and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Rajbala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prafulla Pant, J. - (1.) HEARD . By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 10258 of 2009, Smt. Rajbala vs. Ramesh and others, relating to offences punishable under section 494, 120B, 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd Dehradun.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent (complainant) Rajbala got married to Ramesh on 22.04.2002. It has been alleged by her that she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is also alleged by her that Ramesh (her husband) is living with another woman named Mamta, without getting the marriage with the complainant (respondent) dissolved. The two children are living with the mother (complainant). On said criminal complaint it appears that after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 and that of the witnesses under section 202 of Cr.P.C. the trial court has summoned not only Ramesh (husband), but also the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are father in law, mother in law, brother in law, married sister in law (NANAD) and brother in law (NANDOI) of the complainant/(respondent). It is further pointed out that Ramesh (husband of the complainant) lives in Sihani, Ghaziabad, in a rented accommodation. It is further pleaded that he had no connection with the present petitioners. It is also pointed out that petitioner No. 4 and petitioner No. 5, who are married sister in law and her husband are residents of District Bijnor. Apart from this, it is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 Chote Lal (father in law), petitioner No. 2 Kamla (mother in law), petitioner No. 3 Naresh (brother in law, DEVAR) and petitioner No. 4 Suresh Kumar (another broth in law, DEVAR) live in District Haridwar.
(3.) IT is argued that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioners, due to the matrimonial discord between her and her husband. From annexure -3 to the petition it appears that petitioner No. 1 Chote Lal (father in law of the complainant) lives with his wife petitioner No. 2 Kamla, and his two sons petitioner No. 3 Naresh and petitioner No. 4 Suresh Kumar. It clearly reflects that petitioner No. 5 Bhupendra and petitioner No. 6 Gudia are not the persons of family of the petitioner No. 1. As such, the impugned criminal proceedings moved by the complainant (Smt. Rajbala) as against said two petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. As far as the petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 4 are concerned, they have pleaded that they are living separately from Ramesh. But said fact has been denied by the complainant in her counter affidavit, as such, it is disputed question of fact whether the petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 4 live with Ramesh or not. And said plea can be better examined by the trial court after recording of evidence. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is disposed of with the direction that the impugned proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 10258 of 2009, are quashed only as against the petitioner No. 5 Bhupendra (brother in law NANDOI) and petitioner No. 6 Gudia (sister in law NANAD). As against the other petitioners the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. The interim order dated 04.06.2010 stands vacated. The trial court may proceed with the trial not only against the accused Ramesh but also against the petitioners Chote Lal, Kamla, Naresh and Suresh Kumar. It is observed that if the petitioner No. 1 Chote Lal, petitioner No. 2 Kamla, petitioner No. 3 Naresh and petitioner No. 4 Suresh Kumar surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. It is also observed that since the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 494 of I.P.C., are not made out against present petitioners only husband shall be tried in respect of said offence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.