Palok Basu, J. - (1.) Smt. Indrawati is the mother-in-law, Vimal Prasad is the father-in-law, Yogendra Kumar is the husband respectively, of Smt. Rita who died of burn injuries on 18-7-1987. Rikhab Sen Jain father of Smt. Rita lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali district Muzaffarnagar registered at Crime No. 376/87, under Section 306/498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that the petitioners treated Smt. Rita with extreme cruelty as further dowry demands could not be met by him whereupon Smt. Rita has been burn by the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet and the petitioners have been committed to the Court of Sessions. Consequently, Sessions Trial No. 48 of 1988, is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar and charges under Section 304-B IPC/498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the petitioners on 7-9-1988. This writ petition was got reported on 31-3-1990 in this Court and has been filed on 9-5-1990. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, we dismissed the writ petition by our order dated 11-5-1990 and the reasons for our decision are stated hereunder:-
(2.) The petitioners' learned Counsel argued that since this writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 and 228 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that- (i) The record of the Sessions Trial No. 48/1988 be called for to examine the Constitutional validity of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as those Sections are ultravires of Article 14, 19, 21 and 22; (ii) A writ of Prohibition should issue restraining the trial judge from proceeding with the Sessions Trial; (iii) A writ or Certiorari should issue quashing the proceedings in the Sessions Trial; There is no alternative with this Court but to admit this petition. Apart from arguing that this petition has been made under Article 228 of the Constitution it was brought to our notice that two petitions in which similar questions have been raised earlier have already been admitted. The learned counsel went on to argue the same point over and over again without any answer to our querries that in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court none of the points survive for decision by this Court. It has already been noted that in the instant case charges have been framed nearly two years ago and there will, therefore, be no justification whatsoever to call for the record, stay or quash the trial because 'no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case' is involved and as such Article 228 of the Constitution of India is not attracted at all.
(3.) As regards the points and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they may how be mentioned here one by one. 1. Section 498-A IPC violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 20 and 21 of our Constitution The learned Counsel for the petitioners has read out few passages from the case of Mitthu v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC page 473 and tried to show that his ground in the present petition and the observation of the Supreme Court in the said case are parallel. We do not find anything common or parallel in Mitthu's case (supra) and the present petition. The attempt of the learned Counsel is baseless. In this connection he read out two paragraphs from the decision reported in Two Lawyers Edition page 60 which also have no bearing whatsoever on the question posed in the instant case.;