C482/1247/2013 of Gajala @ Paro AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. application (C482) No.1247 of 2013 Smt. Gajala @ Paro & two others …..Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1

Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate for respondent no.2.

List of cases referred:

i)Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10)

SCC 741

ii)Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

By means of present criminal misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the charge-sheet no.354/09 dated 5.10.2009, summoning order dated 07.11.2009 and the bailable warrants issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no.4498 of 2009, State vs. Naeem Sikhoh and others, under Sections 498-A/323/504 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali District Dehradun.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 with P.S. Kotwali District Dehradun on 26.06.2009 stating therein that she got married to the petitioner no.3 on 11.11.2007. After marriage, her husband, sister-in-law (Nanad), brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) started making taunts for dowry and pressurized her to take money from her brother. When the complainant refused to bring money, the applicants have beaten her brutally.

Thereafter, her brother came to her matrimonial house and gave Rs.50,000/- to her husband, even then the applicants were not happy. Meanwhile, male child was born out of the wedlock in which also her parents gave Rs.10,000/- On 06.06.2009, petitioner no.3 came and asked the complainant to bring money from her brother and on her refusal he started beating her. The complainant was ousted by the applicants whereupon she called her father through telephone. It is alleged that the applicants forcibly took signature on the divorce paper and also child was not given to her.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that due to some matrimonial discord between respondent no.2 and applicant no.3, they both took divorce with mutual consent on 06.06.2009, however, with the intervention of family members again marriage was solemnized on 30.06.2010. He would contend that meanwhile the respondent no.3 lodged false First Information Report on 26.06.2009 against the applicants. Learned counsel would further contend that applicant no.1 is married sister-in-law (Nanad) and applicant no.2 is sister-in-law (Jethani), who live separately from applicant no.3 and respondent no.2 and they have no concern with the married life of the duo but they have also been roped in the instant case, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on file.

5. On bare reading of FIR, foundation of the criminal offence is laid against the applicant no.3, who happens to be the husband of the victim whereas the allegations levelled against the applicant nos.1 and 2 are general and vague. It appears that the applicant nos.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in the case merely because they are close and near relatives of husband of the complainant. Now-a-days there is an increasing tendency in the society to over-implicate the near and dear relatives of the husband so as to pressurize the husband. As these relatives of husband stand on different footing, therefore they should not be compelled to face the trial of Court unless any specific allegations have been made against them.

6. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra[1]has observed as under:-

“19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the

matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”

7. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj[2] has held as under:-

“… tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against applicant nos.1 and 2 would be nothing but abuse of process of law. As regards the applicant no.3-husband, prima facie the ingredients of Section 498A, 323 and 504 of IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against him. When the foundation of criminal offence is made out, this Court has no occasion to interfere with the proceeding of the Court below.

9. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is disposed of, with following directions:-

i) So far the trial relates to applicant no. 1 Smt. Gajala and applicant no.2 Smt. Ruksana, the criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4498/2009 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed.

Rajni

Charge-sheet no.354/09 dated 5.10.2009, summoning order dated 07.11.2009 and the bailable warrants issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun also stands quashed qua petitioner nos.1 and 2.

ii) However, the criminal misc. application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed so far it relates to applicant no.3 Naeem Sikoh. The trial court may proceed with the trial of applicant no.3.

(Lok Pal Singh, J.) 15.03.2019