Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 48 (UTT)

VIRENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2011-01-07

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 13.08.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2009, whereby exercising power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. said court has summoned the petitioners namely Virendra Kumar and his wife Sudesh in the trial. 3. Rejoinder affidavit and counter affidavit have already been exchanged. Delay Condonation Application No. 25 of 2011 stands allowed. Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner’s son Sachin Kumar got married to Priya (deceased) who died unnatural death whereafter the respondent no. 2 Anu Devi, an Advocate, lodged the First Information Report against the husband of the deceased and the petitioners relating to offences punishable under section 304B and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that Sachin Kumar and Priya were in love. Their marriage was against the wishes of the parents of the parties as such there was no question of demand of dowry from the side of the parents. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were living separately from their son Sachin Kumar and her wife. After investigation charge sheet was filed against Sachin Kumar (husband) only. When further investigation was directed, again the charge sheet was filed only against Sachin Kumar (husband of the deceased). It is contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant Anu Devi PW1 to name the petitioners to drag them in the trial, and the trial court has erred in law by summoning the petitioners under section 319 of Cr.P.C. 5. Having gone through the statement of PW1 Anu Devi and PW2 Smt. Vimla, this court finds that the trial court has wrongly summoned the petitioners to face the trial. It is admitted by PW1 in her cross examination that accused Sachin Kumar belongs to a different caste and even his caste is known to the witness. PW2 Vimla Devi in her cross examination has admitted that she never went to the matrimonial house of Priya nor she cared to go to Kashipur even after her death. It is admitted by PW1 in her cross examination that accused Sachin Kumar belongs to a different caste and even his caste is known to the witness. PW2 Vimla Devi in her cross examination has admitted that she never went to the matrimonial house of Priya nor she cared to go to Kashipur even after her death. She also admitted that even Sachin Kumar never came to her house. She did not attend the love marriage between Sachin Kumar and Priya. Their bald statements in respect to petitioners who were not accused in charge sheet should not have been acted upon for the purpose of section 319 Cr.P.C., in a case of dowry harassment where there was an intercaste marriage and parents lived separately. 6. In the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the trial court has committed error of law in summoning the petitioners to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under section 304B I.P.C., by exercising power under section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2010, passed in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2009, by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the trial may proceed against accused Sachin Kumar without prejudice to the rights of the parties.