MANMEET SINGH AND TWO OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manmeet Singh And Two Others
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants Manmeet Singh, Harmeet Singh and Smt. Preetpal Kaur, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 04.03.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 401 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
(2.) Complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) filed a criminal complaint case against four accused persons including the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Statement of the complainant Smt. Jaya Arora was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of Jagdish Arora, Jaimal Singh and Tirthraj were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Since the accused persons lived in a place which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, he directed SO concerned to investigate into the matter. SO Kichha inquired and submitted his report. He found the ingredients of the complainant to be true. On the basis of such statements (under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.) and the inquiry report of PS concerned, having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 04.03.2010. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 04.03.2010, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants.
(3.) It was stated by the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) that she was married to applicant no. 1 according to Hindu (Sikh) rites and rituals at Kathgodam, District Nainital. The parents of the complainant gave articles in the marriage to the best of their capacity but her in-laws were not satisfied with such dowry given in the marriage. They demanded a cash of Rs. two lacs soon after the marriage. An application was given to the SSP Udham Singh Nagar. The husband and wife were summoned by the women help line. A compromise took place in April, 2007. Respondent no. 2 came back to her matrimonial home, but again she was harassed for non-fulfillment of dowry. Her parents told the members of her matrimonial home that they were unable to pay Rs. two lacs and a car. They insisted for the same. She was left at her parental home at Kichha. She along with her witnesses supported the complainant story. The report presented by SO Kichha verified the same. Applicant no. 1 is the husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the respondent no. 2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.