Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 99 (UTT)

Israr v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-16

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The challenge in the instant criminal miscellaneous application is made to the summoning order dated 30.09.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 118 of 2021, Smt. Tamanna vs. Israr & others ('the Case'), by which, the Petitioners-Mohd. Khursheed, Mashrufa, Sonu, Rubina w/o Sonu, Sajida, Rubina w/o Parvej and Parvej have been summoned under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act'); Petitioner-Israr has been summoned under Sections 323 & 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Act and Petitioner-Monu has been summoned under Section 325, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The case is based on an application, filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'), by the complainant, against the applicants. According to the application, after marriage with petitioner-Israr, on 15.03.2018 the applicants harassed and tortured the complainant for demand of dowry. She was assaulted also, due to which, the daughter of the complainant had fractured also. The court treated the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, as a complaint, and after an inquiry, summoned the petitioners as stated hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that complaint is false because petitioner no. 4-Sonu and petitioner no. 6-Rubina are staying in Kerala for the last 15 years. 5. The Court wanted to know as to what material has been placed to reveal that these petitioners are staying in Kerala. Learned counsel would submit that there is no document as such. 6. According to the case of the complainant, she was harassed; tortured and beaten up for the demand of dowry. She was so assaulted that once her daughter had fractured because she was thrown on the ground. She has also stated various allegations against her husband-Israr with regard to strangulation. The order taking cognizance has been passed after conducting inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Code. The Court has found that prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. There is no reason to make any interfere. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application deserves to be dismissed. 7. The present criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed in-limine.