LAWS(UTN)-2010-9-109

RAM CHAMOLI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

Decided On September 28, 2010
Ram Chamoli Appellant
V/S
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available in file. 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 entire proceedings of criminal case no.6244 of 2008 (case crime no.96 of 2008), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Pro­hibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Seema Chamoli lodged a First In­formation Report at PoficS Station Basant Vihar on 4.9.2008 against her husband and the present applicants with the alle­gations that she got married to co-accused Dr. Sunil Kumar Chamoli on 1.5.2005 and in this marriage her parents have spent a lot of money upon dowry. However, right from the marriage, present applicants and her husband were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and on every available opportunity they used to say that co-accused Sunil Kumar Chamoli (hus­band) is a Doctor and the dowry given in the marriage is not proportionate to their standard and they asked to bring ' 15.00 lacs from her father. It is further stated that on 4.5.2005 the respondent no.2 along with the applicants and her husband visited her parental house where these ac­cused demanded ' 15.00 lacs from her parents. On this, her father gave ' 2.50 lacs to them.

(2.) THEREAFTER , she along with her hus­band came to Lucknow where also her husband tortured her for the demand of aforesaid money. It is further alleged that on 27.10.2005 the applicant came to her parental house and again der anded ' 12.50 lacs from her father. Thereafter on the persuasion of her parents, her husband taken her to Australia on 30.1.2006 where also her husband committed her harassment for dowry and ultimately ousted her from the house. Thereafter she came to her in-laws house at Haridwar and told the entire incident to the appli­cants but they stand in support of co-ac­cused Sunil Kumar Chamoli (husband of respondent no.2). The applicants too ousted her from the house for the demand of ' 12.50 lacs whereupon she came to her parental house at Dehradun. With these averments, the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicants and her husband (co-accused). After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigation and on completion of inves­tigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the applicants-accused and co-accused in the court.

(3.) MR . Lok Pal Singh, learned coun­sel for the applicant nos.1 and 2 submit­ted that the cause of action has taken place in Australia, as such the court at Dehradun has no jurisdiction to try the case and therefore the proceedings before the Dehradun court are liable to be quashed. Before further discussion, it would be pertinent to mention Section 178 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-