GURMEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. None appeared for the respondent no. 2 despite being served personally.

(2.) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 30/2006 Nek Chand v. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur & Ors., whereby the order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/J.M., Ist Class, Kashipur framing the charge against the respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC has been quashed.

(3.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 married to each other about 20 years ago as per Hindu rites and the parents of the petitioner had given several articles to the respondent no. 2 as stridhan to their daughter. After sometime, respondent no. 2 and his parents started harassing the petitioner for more dowry and on 29.7.2002, she was finally ousted from the house and since then she is living with her parents. Thereafter the petitioner had time and again requested the respondent no. 2 to return her stridhan but the respondent no. 2 did not return her stridhan. On 12.9.2002, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent no. 2 with request to return her stridhan but despite sufficient service of the notice, respondent no. 2 did not return her stridhan. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted a criminal complainant case against the respondent no. 2 before the Magistrate on 23.10.2002. Learned trial court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and summoned the respondent no. 2 and after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC is made out against the respondent no. 2 and accordingly framed the charge against him under Section 406 IPC vide order dated 1.3.2006.