C482/1134/2010 of MASTER SINGH YADAV AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKAND AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 1134 of 2010

1.Master Singh Yadav,W/o Mauje Singh

2.Smt. Munni Devi, W/o Master Singh Yadav

3.Ms. Sushma Yadav, D/o Master Singh Yadav

4.Ms. Ruchi Yadav, D/o Master Singh YadavR/o Chandmari Kathgodam, HaldwaniDistrict NainitalR/o Chandmari Kathgodam, HaldwaniDistrict Nainital

………..…Petitioners

Versus

1.State of Uttarakhand through Secretary HomeDehradunDehradun

2.Smt. Manu Yadav, W/o Rajesh YadavR/o Prakash Niwas, ChandmariR/o Prakash Niwas, Chandmari

Kathgodam,District Nainital

....……Respondent

Shri Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate, present for the petitioners/applicants.Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State.Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate, present for the respondent.

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This is restoration application MCRC no. 556 of 2011, for recall of order dated 15.07.2011, passed by this Court whereby the restoration application MCRC No. 412 of 2011, and delay condonation application 617 of 2011, were dismissed for non prosecution.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners/ applicants pleaded that on 15.07.2011, he was waiting in the court, but for sometime when he left the court room, meanwhile the case was called, and no one could be present on behalf of the petitioners. An affidavit to this fact has been filed in support of the application.

3.In the interest of justice MCRC no. 556 of 2011, is allowed, and order dated 15.07.2011, is hereby recalled on the condition that matter shall be heard today.

4.Also heard on restoration application MCRC No. 412 of 2011, and delay condonation application no. 617 of 2011, and perused the affidavit filed with the said applications. Delay condonation application in filing MCRC no. 412 of 2011, is allowed. Delay is condoned.

5.In view of principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntax vs. Union of India, 2007 AIR SCW 1971, the restoration application no. 412 of 2011, is also allowed. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is restored.

6.Heard learned counsel for the parties on the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C..

7.Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 Manu Yadav got married to Rajesh Yadav in the year 2000. Two children were born out of the wed-lock. It appears that Manu Yadav is teacher , and Rajesh Yadav was also teacher (terminated from service). The matrimonial relations between the two appear to have soured after he (Rajesh Yadav) started living with another woman named Monika Tiwari, whereafter the litigations started between the husband and the wife. In the FIR relating to the impugned charge sheet not only the husband is named as an accused but the petitioner no. 1 Master Singh Yadav (father in law), petitioner no. 2 Munni Devi (mother in law), petitioner no. 3 Sushma Yadav (married sister in law) and petitioner no. 4 Ruchi Yadav (unmarried sister in law) are also named as accused. It is alleged in the FIR of the respondent no. 2 that her husband, and in-laws made demand of dowry, and she was subjected to cruelty. After investigation charge sheet was filed against all the five accused named in the FIR.8.Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & another (2010) SCC 667,and argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, and learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant Manu Yadav was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws. Perusal of the FIR, and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer show that there are specific allegations of cruelty against Rajesh Yadav (husband). Allegations are also made against father-in-law and mother-in-law relating to demand of dowry. However, no specific role is assigned to the sisters-in-law namely Sushma Yadav and Ruchi Yadav.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Sushma Yadav is married sister-in-law who lives far away in Etah. It is also contended that Ruchi Yadav is still student. It is argued that there is nothing either in the FIR or the statement of the witnesses under section 161

Cr.P.C., as to what cruelty was committed by the two sisters.

10.Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, there appears to be abuse of process of law against petitioner no. 3 Sushma Yadav and petitioner no. 4 Ruchi Yadav. Therefore, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is partly allowed. The impugned criminal proceedings of criminal case no. 765 of 2010, State vs. Master Singh Yadav and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC., and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Kathgodam, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, are quashed so far as the same relate as against the petitioner no. 3 Sushma Yadav and petitioner no. 4 Ruchi Yadav. However, the trial is not interfered with in respect of rest three accused. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

28.07.2011