RAJ KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Raj Kumar Garg and Ors.
State of Uttarakhand And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the chargesheet No. 205 of 2006, dated 02.09.2006, under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, filed before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal case No. 1530 of 2006 (State v. Ajay Kumar Garg and others), as well as the summoning order dated 12.09.2006, under Section 498A of IPC, passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Taking recourse to Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., informant/respondent No. 3 Sharawan Kumar lodged an FIR against four accused persons, including the applicants, in police station, Ranipur, Haridwar on 03.08.2006, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against all the four accused persons in respect of selfsame offences. Cognizance was taken on the same and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against that order, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved.
(2.) RUCHI , daughter of informant/respondent No. 3 Sharawan Kumar, is the victim. Applicant No. 1 is father -in -law, applicant No. 2 is mother -in -law and applicant No. 3 is sister -in -law of the daughter of respondent No. 3. A compounding application CRMA No. 942 of 2013 was filed jointly by the informant/respondent and -applicant No. 1 stating therein that a compromise has taken place between the parties. Affidavits of respondent No. 3 and applicant No. 1 have been filed alongwith the compounding application.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 is the informant whose daughter was alleged to be harassed on account of non -fulfillment of dowry. It is the victim whose statement is material. Informant/Respondent No. 3 Sharawan Kumar and applicant No. 1 Raj Kumar Garg are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. Victim Ruchi is present in person before this Court, duly identified by Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate. The victim said that she is not willing to prosecute the accused -applicants. She also said that she has entered into compromise on her own volition. When the victim does not want to prosecute the accused -applicants, can she be permitted to compound the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.