SANJEEV BUDHAKOTI Vs. MANJU BUDHAKOTI
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-20
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 04,2013

Sanjeev Budhakoti Appellant
VERSUS
Manju Budhakoti Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) IT is stated by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 2 (father -in -law of the victim) has died, therefore, he is not seeking any relief in respect of said applicant.
(2.) THE applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to set aside the summoning order dated 13.03.2008, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun and to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 658 of 2009, Smt. Manju vs. Sanjeev Budhakoti and others, under Section 406 of IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. A criminal complaint case was filed by the respondent against six accused persons, including the applicants, in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. On the basis of statement of Manju Budhakoti under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statement of Sanjeev Budhakoti under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., accused -applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, vide order dated 13.03.2008. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused -applicants.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the impugned order is not happily drafted, yet the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. leave no room for doubt that a prima facie case against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out. Respondent was married to the applicant No. 1 on 17.10.2004, according to Hindu rites and rituals at Rishikesh. The parents, brothers and relatives of the respondent gave enough articles to her in the marriage. Differences cropped up between the respondent and applicant No. 1 in due course, as a consequence of which, the respondent was assaulted, threatened, harassed and ousted from her matrimonial home. The articles given to the respondent in dowry were not returned to her. It was stated that the jewellery and other streedhan was still in the possession of the applicants and was not returned to the respondent. The details of the articles given in marriage were given in paragraph No. 4 of the complaint.;


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