Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 187 (UTT)

Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-05-02

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. In this case, a First Information Report has been lodged by respondent No. 2 – Km. Kama (Ritu) under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Kotwali, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the present applicants, who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of the complainant/respondent No. 2. Subsequently, the case was registered being Criminal Case No. 5471 of 2015, under the aforesaid section, which is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. The Police after investigating the matter also submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons before the court concerned. Consequently, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter and issued summons against the present applicants. Hence, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. During the winter vacation, when the case was filed before this Court, the learned Single Judge has stayed the above criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants vide order dated 21.01.2016, which reads as under:- “Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, A.G.A. for the State. Heard. Urgency application is allowed. Admit the petition. Notice to respondent no. 2 fixing 3rd March 2016. First Information Report has been lodged by respondent no. 2 at Kotwali Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar with the allegation that family of respondent no. 2 and family of applicant no. 1 agreed to perform marriage of applicant no. 1 with respondent no. 2 and engagement ceremony was performed on 21.02.2015. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 51,000/- was given to the family member of the applicant and further Rs.20,000/- as expenditure were incurred in engagement ceremony. Marriage was fixed for 9th May 2015. It is further alleged that prior to the marriage, the applicants demanded Rs. 5 lacs and stated that without receiving said money, the marriage will not be performed. Due to this reason, marriage could not take place. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 is physically handicapped person to the extent of 65% and is a government employee serving as Gram Vikas Adhikari posted in District Pauri Garhwal. Respondent no. 2 is also serving as Sahaika in Aanganbari in District Udham Singh Nagar. It is further submitted that engagement ceremony was taken place but marriage could not solemnized. 1 is physically handicapped person to the extent of 65% and is a government employee serving as Gram Vikas Adhikari posted in District Pauri Garhwal. Respondent no. 2 is also serving as Sahaika in Aanganbari in District Udham Singh Nagar. It is further submitted that engagement ceremony was taken place but marriage could not solemnized. It is also contended that petitioners are ready to return the entire money which was incurred by the family member of respondent no. 2 during engagement ceremony and submitted that said money will be given to respondent no. 2 by way of bank draft within a period of one month from today, if same is accepted by her. It is also submitted that there is possibility of compromise between the parties, and in case some interim order is passed, the petitioners will take all possible steps for settling the dispute. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the papers on record, as an interim measure, it is directed that till next date of listing further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5471 of 2015 (FIR No. 157 of 2015) relating to offence punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar shall remain stayed. List this matter on 3rd March 2016.” 3. In view of the above assurance, though the applicants want to remit the entire amount to the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Smt. Kama (Ritu) by way of demand draft, but the envelope (containing demand draft), sent to the applicants has been returned undelivered due to wrong address. 4. Heard Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. V.K. Gemeni, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No. 1 – Anil Kumar is 65% physically challenged person and is a Government employee working as Gram Vikas Adhikari at Pauri Garhwal. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as documents available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as far as the proceedings are concerned. The proceedings shall go on before the court below, in accordance with law. 7. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as documents available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as far as the proceedings are concerned. The proceedings shall go on before the court below, in accordance with law. 7. The applicants are at a liberty to move an application for their discharge, if they are so advised, which shall be considered, in accordance with law, though at an appropriate stage. The court below shall also keep in mind this aspect that the present applicant No. 1 – Anil Kumar is a physically challenged person and is also a Government employee. Moreover, the allegations, which are narrated in the First Information Report, are primarily appears to be under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act only. Therefore, in case, the applicants appear before the trial court and move an application for their bail before the learned Magistrate concerned, the same shall be considered as far as possible on the same day itself. In case, the bail application is deferred or rejected for any reason, the learned Magistrate shall consider granting them an interim bail on the same day itself. It is also made clear, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were not directly involved in the matter and their bail application shall also be considered on the same day by the learned Magistrate concerned. 8. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed. Interim order dated 21.01.2016 is hereby vacated.