KUSUM AND TWO OTHERS Vs. PRITI VERMA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Kusum And Two Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants Smt. Kusum Verma, Kishan Verma and Mohit Verma, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 28.01.2010 passed in complaint case no. 857 of 2009, Smt Priti Verma vs. Vishal Verma, under Sections 498-A & 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant (respondent herein) against five accused persons including the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 31.07.2009. After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of Deepak alias Pradeep and Smt. Veena Sharma under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after having found a prima facie (criminal) case against the applicants, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. It was stated by the complainant that she was married to Vishal Verma according to the Hindu rites and rituals on 06.02.2007. Her parents spent money in the marriage to the best of capacity. Plenty of articles were also given, but the applicants started harassing her for want of giving sufficient dowry. They demanded cash of Rs. two lacs and an Alto car. She was assaulted and was ousted from her matrimonial home during her pregnancy. A child was begotten by her in her parental home. Accused persons took her to the matrimonial home but again treated her with cruelty. She was again ousted by her in-laws from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as criminal complaint case. When her witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., they supported the complaint-story.
(3.) There was no infirmity in the impugned order. Learned trial court did not commit any mistake in summoning the accused persons under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband of the respondent is not the applicant before this Court. The applicants are relatives of the husband of the victim. Foundation of criminal offence is, therefore, laid against the applicants.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.