IRFAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the Criminal Case No. 602/2007, State v. Irfan, under Section 498A, 506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. It has further been sought to quash the order of cognizance dated 14.2.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee on the basis of the aforesaid chargesheet.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, it appears that Smt. Bilkish, opposite party No. 2, was wedded with the applicant Irfan as per Muslim rituals and ceremonies almost a decade ago. Two children were born out of the wedlock of the duo. Smt. Bilkish passed her wedded life with all conjugal pleasures for few years, but the differences cropped up between them on the question of dowry, which further aggravated as the days and years passed on, with the result that Smt. Bilkish left her husband's house on 18.9.2006 and came to reside along with her parents at Roorkee. She strived to lodge the FIR against her husband and in -laws since 7.11.2006 onwards, but could not lodge the same even after running from pillar to post. Ultimately, she moved an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure on 25.11.2006 to the court of the concerned Magistrate and, thereafter, she could lodge the report against her husband Irfan and four others including her father -in -law, brother -in -law, mother -in -law and sister -in -law. After investigation, the chargesheet No. 28/2006 bearing crime No. 370/2006 was submitted in the court, whereupon the order of cognizance dated 14.2.2007 was passed. This chargesheet and order of cognizance are under challenge in this petition.

(3.) BE that as it may, the fact remains that FIR was lodged against the husband as well as his all kinsmen and kinswomen, but after investigation the chargesheet has been submitted only against Irfan, absolving rest of the accused persons. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the matrimonial life of the couple passed on peacefully for 5 -6 years, and then hardly there is any probability of demand of dowry, is not acceptable. It has been alleged in the complaint that the applicant was not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and, therefore, he started harassing and torturing the complainant for demand of dowry soon after the marriage. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that the powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are not to be exercised after scrupulous analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as the facts at this stage are very hazy. The only observance expected on the part of this Court is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out against the accused after weighing the allegations and the corroborating evidence.