Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 68 (UTT)

DHEERAJ RAJVANSHI v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2008-02-20

B.C.KANDPAL

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner have sought the relief for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.9.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Case no. 2044 of 2002, State vs. Dheeraj Rajvanshi & other, under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and also quashing the charge sheet dated 6.7.2002 submitted in Case Crime No. 340 of 2002 as well as for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint to the police against the petitioners on 24.5.2002 and police registered the case under Section 498A of IPC and 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as Crime No. 340 of 2002, against the petitioners. During investigation, police recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police, took cognizance against the petitioners and summoned them to face the trial, under Section 498A, IPC and 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 25.9.2002. 3. The petitioners have thus challenged the aforesaid impugned order dated 25.9.2002, charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of criminal case by way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that marriage of petitioner no. 1 and Smt. Babita (daughter of respondent no. 2) was performed on 17.2.2002 at Dehradun and at the time of marriage petitioner no. 1 was in Government Service in Roadways and his duty hours was about 24 hours. He has further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is the mother of petitioner no. 1. 6. As far as case relating to petitioners no. 3,4 and 5 is concerned, they have alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that petitioners no. 3 and 4 are the uncle and aunt of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 5 is their son. He has also submitted that at the time of alleged incident, petitioner no. 5 was doing in service in ‘Escotel Mobile Communications Limited Company’ and he was posted at Agra. Petitioner no. 3 and 4 are the uncle and aunt of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 5 is their son. He has also submitted that at the time of alleged incident, petitioner no. 5 was doing in service in ‘Escotel Mobile Communications Limited Company’ and he was posted at Agra. Petitioner no. 3 and 4 (uncle and aunt of petitioner no. 1) are also residing separately as well as they have no concern with the marital dispute going on in the family of petitioner no. 1 and his wife. This factual aspect which has been averred by petitioners no. 3,4 and 5 in the petition has not been specifically denied by respondent no. 2 in his counter affidavit. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Ramesh and others vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 735, has observed as follows: “6. Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Gowry Ramaswami. Looking at the allegations in the FIR and the contents of charge sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences viz. Sections 498-A, 406-C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time i.e. between March and October 1997, when the respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for same days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of haunting and ill-treatment of the informant by her sister-in-law (the appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the FIR is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash WC and she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave”. It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowry was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry were not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowry Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed.” 8. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstance as well as the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the above cited case, I do not find any justification that the criminal proceedings should continue against petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5. In case, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued against petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5, the same will amount to abuse of process of Court. 9. I therefore, quash the proceedings of Case no. 2044 of 2002, State vs. Dheeraj Rajvanshi & others, under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, against petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5 only. 10. However, so far as the case of petitioners no. 1 and 2 is concerned, the same stands on different footing as petitioner no. 1 is the husband and petitioner no. 2 is the mother of husband (petitioner no. 1) and living in the same house, hence, the matter relating to petitioners no. 1 and 2 being disputed question of fact needs scrutiny by the trial court. The case pertaining to petitioners no. 1 and 2 is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 11. For the reasons stated above, I dismiss the petition on behalf of petitioners no. 1 & 2 and allow the same for petitioners no. 1 and 2 being disputed question of fact needs scrutiny by the trial court. The case pertaining to petitioners no. 1 and 2 is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 11. For the reasons stated above, I dismiss the petition on behalf of petitioners no. 1 & 2 and allow the same for petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.