SEEMA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>DHARAM VEER, J.</DJG> This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the cognizance order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 894/2005, Smt. Seema Sharma v. Arvind Sharma & Ors. whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint against the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 for the offence punishable under Section 147, 506(2) IPC. However, other co-accused Arvind Sharma, Omprakash Sharma and Smt. Indu sharma were summoned in connection with the offence punishable under Section 323, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the aforesaid cognizance order dated 17.9.2005, the complainant Seema Sharma has preferred the present revision.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention here that against the aforesaid cognizance order, Indu Sharma had filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 948/2005 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 29.6.2010 and proceedings in respect of Indu Sharma in the aforesaid complaint case were quashed.

(3.) In brief, the case of the revisionist is that she had filed a complaint against the respondents no. 2 to 4, viz., Vipin Kumar Sharma, Smt. Neelam Sharma and Dinesh Chand Sharma as well as against her husband Arvind Sharma, Omprakash Sharma and Indu Sharma before the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun under Section 147, 323, 498A, 506(2) IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In support of her case, Smt. Seema Sharma was examined under Section 200 CrPC wherein she has stated that on 28.6.2005 at about 6 pm, when she was in the house of her father, six people, viz., Arvind, Dinesh, Neelam, Vipin, Indu Sharma and Prem Chand came there and asked her to bring rupees two lakhs from her father. She replied that she could give only rupees one or two thousand but cannot ask such a big amount from her father. On this, all of them beaten her. On hearing her noise, her parents, brother Sushil and Ram Sumer came at the place of occurrence and saved her. Thereafter she came in the Kotwali along with her parents to lodge the FIR, but her report was not lodged in the police station. On the next day, she was medically examined at the Doon Hospital. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant Seema Sharma under Section 200 CrPC and other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and thereafter passed the impugned cognizance order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the complainant/revisionist has preferred the present revision.