SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-61
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 22,2013

SURENDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and judgment and order dated 28.03.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in criminal revision no. 204 of 2011 whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C summoning Harjinder Singh and Santok Singh as additional witnesses and revision arising therefrom was dismissed by the Revisional Court on the ground that order of summoning the additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, therefore, revision is not maintainable.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that an FIR being case crime no. 2014 of 2006 on 13.06.2006 under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners herein stating therein that his daughter Kuldeep Kaur got married with Surendra Singh as per the Sikh Rituals and Customs on 13.02.2006; at the time of marriage silver and gold jewellery, washing machine, colour TV, fridge and other articles were given to the petitioners' party; one day before marriage one motorcycle was demanded by the husband side and the same was also given to the husband at the time of marriage, even then, husband and in-laws of Kuldeep Kaur were not happy with the articles given at the time of marriage; petitioners started beating and harassing Kuldeep Kaur, just after three days of her marriage on the pretext of bringing less dowry; complainant came to the matrimonial house of Kuldeep Kaur after five days of her marriage; Kuldeep Kaur told him that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty and they were demanding a Alto Car; it was further disclosed by Kuldeep Kaur that petitioners were extending threat, if Alto Car was not given, they would oust her and they would kill her; despite repeated requests by the complainant and his daughter, petitioners did not stop and kept on demanding Alto Car; on 18.04.2006 complainant along with few other persons once again went to the matrimonial house of Kuldeep Kaur and tried to pacify the petitioners, however, petitioners refused to hear them and told the appellant that until and unless, Alto Car was given, they would not allow Kuldeep Kaur to enter into their house.
(3.) Having investigated the matter, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial PW1 Seva Singh, complainant and PW2 Kuldeep Kaur were examined and cross-examined, thereafter, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved before the Magistrate to summon Harjinder Singh and Santok Singh as additional witnesses stating that Harjinder Singh and Santok Singh also went to the matrimonial house of Kuldeep Kaur. Learned Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 07.09.2011, was pleased to allow the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C summoning Harjinder Singh and Santok Singh as additional witnesses. Revision, arising therefrom, was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 28.03.2012 by observing that order of summoning the additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this petition.;


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