NAVEEN SONI Vs. SHARDA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/7/2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 119/2016 arising out of order dtd. 4/2/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Case No. 276/2015 by which the learned Magistrate has registered the criminal complaint of the respondent against the petitioners.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that as per Hindu customs, marriage took place between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent on 17/11/2003. Thereafter, the respondent started living with the petitioner No. 1 at Delhi. From the said wedlock, a male child was born and now he is about 11 years old. Thereafter, on 06/06/2011, the respondent returned back to her parent's house at Raipur and did not return back to petitioner's house at Delhi.

(3.) In the year 2012, the respondent filed a criminal complainant under Sec. 200 against the petitioners for registration of a case under Sec. 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and stating that her marriage took place with petitioner No. 1 on 17/11/2003. Out of the said wedlock, one male child was born on 08/03/2005. When she used to live at the petitioners' house, the petitioners used to demand dowry of Rs.15.00 lakhs and some times Rs.2.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs for opening of jewellery showroom. Hence his father on 21/9/2003 had given one kilogram gold and on 13/10/2005, 50.17 gram silver and on 27/10/2010, 57.75 carat white diamond had been given to petitioners for opening showroom but the petitioners did not open the showroom and were subjecting the respondent with cruelty and assaulted her. Subsequently, the petitioners were demanding the amounts for purchasing flat in the name of respondent. But the aforesaid flat had been purchased in the name of Shrimati Santosh Soni, mother-in-law of the petitioners. She further stated that, at the time of marriage of Praveen Soni i.e. petitioner No. 4, she was pregnant and petitioners were asking respondent to do household works. On account of that, she suffered miscarriage. She further alleged that the petitioners No. 2 and 4 were gamblers and the entire amount given for showroom was lost in gambling and again they threatened the respondent and were demanding money. On account of that, she returned back on 06/06/2011 to her parents house at Raipur and did not again went to petitioners' house.