VIVEK SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this petition under Sec. 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

(3.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.2/Complainant-Smt. Sughriti Sahu got married with the co-accused namely Kamlesh Sahu on 17/02/2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner happens to be brother-in-law of the complainant. After getting married with the co-accused, the complainant went to her matrimonial house situated at District-Guna (M.P.) and soon thereafter, she flew abroad alongwith her husband namely, Kamlesh Sahu to Singapore, the place of employment of her husband. The complainant never expressed her willingness and co-operation towards her matrimonial obligations and often used to create unnecessary complications in the matrimonial life, which resulted into certain differences between the couple and ultimately after a very short span of time, the complainant returned back to India on 18/07/2011 and started residing at her parental place at Raipur (C.G.) and not at her matrimonial house at Guna (M.P.). Co-accused Kamlesh Sahu alongwith others tried to persuade the complainant to lead a happy and peaceful married life, but all in vain. In the meantime on 23/03/2012, respondent No.2/Complainant gave birth to a girl child at Raipur (C.G.) and on that occasion also, she was persuaded to come back to her matrimonial house, but she remained adamant in her behavior and attitude and refused to go back to her matrimonial house either at Guna (M.P.) or to her husband in Singapore. After birth of the girl child, respondent No. 2/Complainant visited her matrimonial house at District Guna (M.P.) for a very short span of time, but in that period also she remained absolutely adamant and indifferent towards her in-laws and went back to her parental house at Raipur (CG). On 11/03/2015 respondent No.2/Complainant submitted a written complaint with full of afterthought, exaggerated and baseless allegations against the entire family members of her husband. The written report contained references of the present petitioner at two instances, those are: (1) after birth of daughter on 23/03/2012 the petitioner herein, alongwith two other co-accused persons, had visited Raipur (CG); and (ii) whenever the petitioner used to visit Guna (M.P.) he used to harass respodnent No.2 for dowry. It would be worth mentioning here that no specific allegation has been leveled against the petitioner but general and vague allegations have been levelled.