Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 363 (UTT)

Ankit Agarwal v. Neha Agarwal

2020-10-05

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 8th March, 2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 2871 of 2018, Neha Agarwal vs. Ankit Agarwal and others (the case), passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, as also the entire proceedings of the case. 2. Facts, necessary to dispose of this petition briefly stated are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and another. This is the basis of the case. According to the complaint, the respondent was married to petitioner no.1 on 11th June, 2015, and in the marriage, gifts, jewellery and Rs.5,00,000/- cash was given. But, subsequently, the respondent was tortured and harassed, mentally and physically for the demand of dowry. On 29th May, 2017, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. The respondent started staying with her sister's house at Khatima. On 22nd April, 2018, at 8:00 in the morning, the petitioners and others came Khatima and assaulted the respondent. 3. In this Complaint, the statement of the respondent under Section 200 of the Code was recorded. The Court below also got the matter investigated under Section 202 of the Code and a report was received. After considering these facts, the petitioner Ankit Agarwal has been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and petitioners Subham Agarwal and Smt. Kanchan Agarwal have been summoned under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This order is impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent stays in Bareilly, where she had filed three criminal cases against the petitioners and the instant matter was filed by her in Khatima. Reference has been made to the statements of the parties given in the helpline to argue that the petitioner no. 1 is ready and willing to stay with the respondent-wife. Reference has been made to the statements of the parties given in the helpline to argue that the petitioner no. 1 is ready and willing to stay with the respondent-wife. Learned counsel would argue that the respondent since beginning is adamant to harass the petitioners; she has filed various cases; she had left the house of the petitioners on 29th May, 2017, but the complaint was filed long thereafter and in one of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, respondent has categorically stated that if she is given 12 to 15 lakhs rupees, she would divorce the petitioner no.1; she is after money; the respondent wanted that the petitioner Ankit Agawal should stay away from his parents but the petitioner no.1 Ankit Agarwal being the sole son of his parents, was not agreeable to that and it was the cause of difference between the parties. It is argued that the impugned order deserves to be set aside because the proceedings have been filed just to harass the petitioners. 5. On behalf of the respondent, it is argued that the order of cognizance has been passed on the basis of evidence collected in the inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Code. There have been sufficient materials to summon the petitioners. 6. It is a very small issue. The respondent-wife filed a complaint against the petitioners and one another and the petitioners have been summoned for the offences, as stated hereinabove. The records reveal that parties have various proceedings pending at different legal forum. Petitioner Ankit Agarwal has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 also and parties are also in litigation under Section 125 of the Code. One of the statements of the respondent recorded in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code has been enclosed as annexure-9, in which, respondent has in fact stated that if the expenditure incurred by her family in the marriage is given to her, she may give divorce. But, at this stage, deeper scrutiny of any material should not be made in this proceeding. This statement of the respondent does not doubt her complaint case. 7. The complainant in the instant case categorically stated that as to what had happened with her. But, at this stage, deeper scrutiny of any material should not be made in this proceeding. This statement of the respondent does not doubt her complaint case. 7. The complainant in the instant case categorically stated that as to what had happened with her. There is a specific averment with regard to incident dated 22nd April, 2018, which according to the complainant, occurred in the house of her sister in Khatima. In her statement under Section 200 of the Code, these facts have been reiterated by the respondent. The matter was also investigated under Section 202 of the Code. Medical certificate was also placed on record and the impugned order dated 8th March, 2019 reveals that, in fact, it has been passed after making a detailed analysis. This order is not passed in a routine manner. In fact, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in this petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. At this State, on behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that a direction may be issued that in case the petitioners appear before the court concerned, and apply for the bail, their bail application may be decided on the same day. Undoubtedly, if a bail application is moved, the court decides it expeditiously, in accordance with law, and for this purpose, no separate directions are as such required. 9. The petition is dismissed.