Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 240 (UTT)

Meenu v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-06-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been preferred against the summoning order dated 03.08.2019, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5704 of 2018, Smt. Neelam vs. Meenu and Others, by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short 'the case'). 2. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been summoned to answer accusations under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. In fact, it appears that respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner and others under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. According to it, respondent no.2 and the petitioner were married on 29.10.2014. Father of the respondent no.2 had given dowry in accordance with his capacity. A motorcycle and some cash was also given, but, the petitioner and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given and they started harassing respondent no.2 for the demand of dowry. Respondent no.2 was harassed, tortured and even beaten up by the petitioner. Whenever respondent no.2 complained to her father-in-law and mother-inlaw, they also did not support her. Sometime in the year 2017, father of respondent no.2 retired from the Government Service and got some post retiral benefits. With a view to extract money from the father of respondent no.2, she was further harassed and tortured for the demand of a car. It is under those circumstances the respondent no.2 left her matrimonial house and started living in her parental house. On 08.08.2018, petitioner went to the paternal house of respondent no.2, abused her, demanded dowry and beat her up. She was rescued. This is the complaint, in which after inquiry made under section 200 and 202 of the Code, the petitioner has been summoned on 03.08.2019. This order is impugned. 4. On 08.08.2018, petitioner went to the paternal house of respondent no.2, abused her, demanded dowry and beat her up. She was rescued. This is the complaint, in which after inquiry made under section 200 and 202 of the Code, the petitioner has been summoned on 03.08.2019. This order is impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the complaint, on 08.08.2018, in her parental house, respondent no.2 was harassed and beaten up, but, there is no medical and no injury report to it; the complaint was filed against the petitioner and his family members, but, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner only; the petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife with him and get the matter amicably settled; the petitioner also filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending; notices have been issued and this petition was filed before he was summoned in the case. It is also argued that warrants against the petitioner have already been issued in the case because he could not appear after service. 5. These are the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. The jurisdiction is too wide, but, circumscribed by various guidelines. In fact, if a prima facie case is made out no interference is warranted. Reliability and truthfulness of the contents are not examined at this stage. Generally it is settled proposition that the trial should not be stopped at its threshold. 6. In the instant case, according to the complaint, respondent no.2 was tortured, taunted and harassed for the demand of dowry. It is stated that the petitioner would often beat his wife, the respondent no.2. It is true that the impugned order does not reveal that any medical report was filed at the time of cognizance, but, then summoning order reflects that the court considered the statements of the witnesses. A prima facie case was found only against the petitioner. The truthfulness of the averments made in the complaint or the statement of respondent no. 2, are the matters to be examined at the trial. In these proceedings, this Court cannot record any such opinion unless there appears any absurdity. 7. A prima facie case was found only against the petitioner. The truthfulness of the averments made in the complaint or the statement of respondent no. 2, are the matters to be examined at the trial. In these proceedings, this Court cannot record any such opinion unless there appears any absurdity. 7. In the instant case, after complaint was filed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but, then it in itself does not make the summoning order doubtful. If the petitioner is willing to get the matter amicably settled, he is free to do so. He does not need any platform or specific forum to settle the matter amicably. 8. The Learned Court below after careful consideration of the statements of respondent no.2 and her witnesses summoned the petitioner. Other persons have not been summoned. A prima facie case has been made out. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the matter. Accordingly the instant petition under section 482 of the Code deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that directions may be issued that the bail application of the petitioner may be considered on the same day when it is presented. 10. The petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his bail application may be considered as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.