ANURAG MITTAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 10.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.932 of 2004, Devendra Gupta v. Anurag Mittal and others, relating to offence punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act).

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire available in file.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Devendra Gupta filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun against the applicants alleging that the marriage of his sister Km. Durgesh Gupta was decided to be solemnized with the applicant Anurag Mittal and the engagement was solemnized on 8.7.2002, in Dehradun, in which the respondent no.2/complainant expended nearabout Rs.60,000/-. It is further alleged that after the engagement, on 13.4.2003, the applicants came to the house of respondent no.2 and demanded Rs.10.00 lacs cash, a new model car, a motor cycle and golden jewellery, in dowry. When the respondent no.2 showed his inability to give the same, the applicants broke the proposed relation of marriage. With these averments, the complaint was filed by respondent no.2 before the C.J.M., Dehradun, which was registered as criminal case no.997 of 2003 in the court of C.J.M., Dehradun, but subsequently it was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Dehradun, where it was renumbered as criminal case no.932 of 2004. In support of the complainant, the complainant got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Chandan Singh Chetri, Pandit Jagdamba Prasad Uniyal and Km. Durgesh Gupta were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the material available, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, vide order dated 10.2.2004 summoned the applicants u/s 3/4 of the Act and subsequently the criminal proceedings were initiated against them. Being aggrieved by the summoning order dated 10.2.2004 and the criminal proceedings initiated against them, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court.