- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. List is revised. Learned Counsel for the applicants is not present.
(2.) THE whole family consisting of husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, three Nanands (sister-in-laws) and three Dewars (brother-in-laws) have approached this Court with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 3. 5. 2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD)/judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4 Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 5444/9/06 Gulebasana v. Najir and others under section 498-A IPC, P. S. Munda Pandey, district Moradabad. As the issue was 'between the husband and wife and the close relatives, the matter was placed before the reconciliation Centre by this Court vide order dated 12. 6. 2007. THE report of the Conciliator as well as Bench Secretary, Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre clearly indicate that settlement could not be reached and hen E this mattEr is listEd today bEforE this Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Sanjay Singh along with the learned AGA are present.
(3.) WITH the help of the learned Counsels for the respondents, I have perused the complaint (annexure No. 2) to the affidavit filed in support of this application as well as the copy of the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by Smt. Gu-lawsana. I have also perused the statement under section 200 Cr. P. C. as well as the statement of P. W. 1 Mehrub w/o Aslam and mother of Gulawsana and that of Ikrar Husain P. W. 2 the eyewitness. From the perusal of the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. which was treated to be a complaint, it appears that respondent No. 2 Smt. Gulawsana was married with Najir on 10. 5. 2006 in village Sikampur, P. S. Munda Pandey, district Moradabad. The dowry mentioned in the complaint including some golden and silver ornaments were given. It is further alleged that all the present applicants started demanding Motorcycle and two lacs rupees in Nikah itself but some of the relatives interfered into the matter and Nikah was contracted. It is further alleged that the complainant stayed in her in-laws house only for two days and then she returned to her parental home. The complainant who again went to the house of her in-laws, she was tortured for the demand of the dowry. It is further alleged that after contracting the marriage the complainant had vacillated between her in-laws house and parental home many times but she did not make complaint regarding dowry demand. On 21. 11. 2006 at 5 P. M. husband Najir along with other accused persons, turned out, the complainant from their house in cloths worne by her and thereafter the complainant informed whole incident to her parents regarding torture for non fulfilment of dowry demand. On 29. 1. 1. 2006 it is alleged that panchayat had taken place between rival sides but the in-laws were adamant on demand and did not budge at all. They refused to bring back complainant Smt. Gulawsana to their house. Since the wife was tortured and the articles given in the marriage were not returned to her that the complaint was lodged by Smt. Gulawsana against the present applicants. Perusal of the application indicates that Najir is the husband ofxcomplainant respondent No. 2. Smt. Jubaida (applicant No. 5) is the mother-in-law, Maddan is father-in-law and Najreen and Mujarmeen applicants No. 7 and 8 are unmarried Nanads, where as Shakir, Nasir and Jabir applicants No. 2 to 4 are the Dewars.;