BEENA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 05 of 2010, State v. Dr. Manmohan Sharma & Anr. u/s 498-A, 323 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Kankhal, District Haridwar pending before the trial court.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, are that marriage of respondent no. 2 Smt. Manisha Sharma was solemnized with petitioner no. 3 Dr. Manmohan Sharma on 21.6.2002 as per Hindu rites and the father of respondent no. 2 had given dowry as per his status which also included gold and silver ornaments and a Santro Car. Soon after the marriage, the petitioners started to harass the respondent no. 2 for dowry. On 30.4.2005, petitioner no. 3 Dr. Manmohan Sharma committed marpit with his wife i.e. respondent no. 2 and ousted her from his house. Thereafter on 1.5.2005, respondent no. 2 complained the matter to National Women Commission, Delhi. Thereafter the petitioners in order to escape the legal proceedings against them compromised the matter with respondent no. 2 and agreed to keep her well in future and accordingly respondent no. 2 moved applications before the SSP, Agra and Rudraprayag requesting not to take further action against the petitioners in this regard. After keeping her well for few days, the petitioners again started to harass respondent no. 2 for dowry. Ultimately, respondent no. 2 went to her maternal house and started living there and she also gave birth to a child in her maternal house on 6.6.2008. Petitioner no. 3 developed also has some illicit relationship with another woman and when respondent no. 2 raised objections against it, petitioner no. 3 had also beaten her on quite a few occasions and respondent no. 2 had also written a letter in this regard to her father on 6.2.2009. Father of respondent no. 2 also registered the aforesaid Santro car in her name. Thereafter on 5.7.2009 at about 11 am, petitioners came at the maternal house of respondent no. 2 where she was living and asked her to get the said car registered in the name of petitioner no. 3 and also demanded rupees four lakhs for opening a nursing home and rupees ten thousand for the car insurance. When respondent no. 2 tried to make them understand, they committed marpit with her. Mother of the respondent no. 2 was also pushed by them on the floor when she tried to save her daughter. Thereafter they left the said place after threatening that if their demands would not be fulfilled, they would kill respondent no. 2 and will solemnize second marriage of petitioner no. 3. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Somdutt Bhardwaj and Satyanaran Sharma, friends of the father of respondent no. 2. Thereafter respondent no. 2 was medically examined at Govt. Hospital, Haridwar and case was lodged against the petitioners with PS Kankhal, Haridwar. After investigation, the I.O. submitted chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which, Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar issued the summoning order dated 4.1.2010 against the petitioners under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) HAVING considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections is made out. The dispute involves factual questions which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record.