SUNITA JAIN Vs. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated October 30, 2003 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1442 of 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur. By the said order, the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents-accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be noted.

(3.) The appellant herein is the wife of Pawan Kumar Jain-respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Poolchand Jain and Smt. Sarojbai Jain are parents of respondent No. 1 and father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that she married to respondent No. 1 on July 8, 1989. After the marriage, she remained with her husband for few days at Jabalpur and during that period, her husband and in-laws harassed her as her father had not given sufficient amount of dowry. They taunted the appellant saying that had the respondent No. 1 married to any other lady, they would have received dowry amount of Rs. 8-10 lakhs. On September 5, 1990, the appellant gave birth to twins. According to the appellant, the greed of the respondents for dowry was so much that in 1991, the first respondent went to the extent of getting quality of gold ornaments given by her father tested by a Goldsmith which were found to be of good quality. It is also the case of the appellant that on December 14, 1991, marriage of the appellants younger sister was solemnized at Sagar and respondent No. 1 and his father had come to attend it. At that time also, the respondents demanded car, colour TV and more gold. When the demand was not met with, the first respondent attacked the appellant and caused injury to her. In March, 1992, the 1st respondent took the appellant with him and kept her with his parents at Jabalpur. Even after giving assurance that she will not be ill-treated, she was physically and mentally tortured for dowry. The appellant informed her father that her husband and in- laws were demanding dowry from her and her husband assaulted her and her children had been taken away and they were not allowed to see the mother (appellant).