- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Roop Rekha, daughter of Ram Lal, resident of Purebhan Singh, police station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur, was married to applicant No. 1 Ganga Sagar son of Lala resident of Bhairampur, police station Kotwali, District Fatehpur on 24-5- 2001 according to the Hindu customs and rights. In the marriage her father Ram Lal had given dowry of Rs. 40,000/- cash, Kishan Vikash Patra of Rs. 20,000/-, a sovereign, sewing machine, golden chain, utensils, Almirah, bed etc. However, the husband his parents and other relatives of Roop Rekha not being satisfied with the said dowry started demanding a motorcycle before Bidai ceremony of Roop Rekha. Anyhow, Bidai took place and Roop Rekha went to her in-laws house but there she was tortured for the said demand of motorcycle by her husband Ganga Sagar at the instigation of her father-in-law Lala, elder brother Jaber and his wife Sunita. Ganga Sagar was also alleged to be having an illicit relation with Sunita and therefore, he remained totally unconcerned with Roop Rekha. The demand of motorcycle was repeated before Khichari by the husband which was intimated by Roop Rekha to her parents. On receiving the said information, parents and brother of Roop Rekha reached in- laws house but they were subjected to ignoring and Roop Rekha was turned out of her in-laws house with them, and since then now she is living in her parental house. Her report was denied to be registered by the police hence Roop Rekha dispatched a letter to Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur on 3- 12-2004 but that too was of no avail. Failed in her attempt to get the F. I. R. lodged Roop Rekha on 8- 12-2004 laid a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur as complaint case No. 1081 of 2004, Roop Rekha v. Ganga Sagar and Ors. , for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Complainant, Roop Rekha examined herself under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and her witnesses Ram Lal, her father, and Balwant son of Raghunath under Section 202 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case summoned husband Ganga Sagar, Lala (father-in-law), Jaber (Jeth) and Sunita (Jethani) for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act vide his order dated 1-6- 2005. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the accused persons Ganga Sagar, Lala, Jaber and Sunita invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. through this application for quashing of the aforesaid complaint laid by Roop Rekha respondent No. 2. At the stage of admission itself this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was dismissed in respect of husband and father-in-law. However a counter-affidavit was called for in respect of Jaber (Jeth) and Smt. Sunita (Jethani) from respondent No. 2 Roop Rekha as well as from A. G. A. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit alongwith stay vacation application. In her counter-affidavit she more or less made the same allegations as that of complaint. The learned Counsel for the applicants did not file any rejoinder affidavit and argued the matter finally on the merits.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri D. S. Pandey and Sri D. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned A. G. A. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that so far as the two applicants Jaber and his wife Sunita Jeth and Jethani are concerned they had never made any demand of dowry. He submitted that in the complaint a demand of motorcycle is alleged to have been made which was of no use for Smt. Sunita and her husband Jaber. He contended that a general allegation without any specification has been levelled against the aforesaid two applicants only for the purposes of harassment. He further submitted that Smt. Sunita was not only subjected to harassment by respondent No. 2 but even her character and chastity was also scandalized by leveling allegation of illicit relation with Ganga Sagar her devar. He also contended that under Section 200 Cr. P. C. it is stated by respondent No. 2 that the demand of motorcycle was made only by her husband and it was her husband who had tortured her. He also argued that in her statement under Section 200 Cr. P. C. complainant had admitted that she had not lodged any other case against her husband and is presently living in her parental house since one and a half years. She had further stated that if her husband will take her back and keep her well she is ready to go with her husband. Learned Counsel for the applicants also contended that in the said statement respondent No. 2 does not level any charge against the present applicants and so far as her witnesses are concerned their evidences are hearsay and cannot be relied upon to summon the two applicants. Learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 contrary submitted that a bare reading of the complaint indicates that the complainant Roop Rekha was tortured because of motorcycle demand and therefore offence is disclosed from the complaint and the present application deserves to be dismissed being without any merit.
(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and have looked into the allegations made in the complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. appended alongwith an affidavit by the applicants in this application. A perusal of the complaint indicates that in the complaint the complainant made a general allegation so far as the two applicants Jaber and his wife Sunita who are Jeth and Jethani are concerned. There is no specific allegation against them. In the complaint she had stated that she was tortured and harassed because of a motorcycle. She had further mentioned in the complaint the she is living in her parental house since last one and a half years. However, in her statement under Section 200 Cr. P. C. no allegation against the applicant has been alleged. Her whole statement under Section 200 Cr. P. C. is conspicuously silent so far as demand of dowry by the present two applicants Jaber and Sunita are concerned and she has levelled the allegations against her husband Ganga Sagar only. She has stated that her husband is a farmer and it was he who had demanded the motorcycle. From the perusal of her statement under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and of her witness Ram Lal under Section 202 Cr. P. C. it is amply clear that Ram Lal was told regarding the demand of dowry by complainant Roop Rekha. He and the other witness Balwant have also not stated anything regarding the demand of dowry by the applicants and they narrated the incident as was told to them by the complainant. The statement of Balwant P. W. 2 indicates that his whole statement is based on hearsay which is inadmissible and cannot be utilized for summoning anybody for committing any offence.;