KHEMCHAND AND ORS. Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, moved under Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been advanced to quash the order of cognizance dated 30.05.2007 passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in complaint Case no.243/2007 (Old No.437/06), titled as Lal Singh Vs. Khem Chand and others. The Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence of Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC against all the five applicants. Applicant no.1 Khemchand is the father of Smt. Rajini, who was wedded with Anil Kumar S/o Lal Singh; applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 are all sons of Khem Chand, while applicant no.5 Suresh Solanki is the relative of Khem Chand.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel of either party, it transpires that Smt. Rajini was espoused with Anil Kumar on 23.6.1999 in Delhi as per Hindu rituals and out of this wedlock, one baby girl, namely, Pratibha was born on 18.12.2000. The relations between the two families could not remain amicable and Smt. Rajini started facing the demand of dowry from her matrimonial house. She was maltreated by her husband Anil and his other family members, therefore, sometime in 2005, she was forced to leave the house of her husband and began to reside with her parents. She lodged the FIR on 24.12.2005 against her father in law Lal Singh, mother in law Smt. Shakuntala, brother in law Sunil, sisters in law Sunita and Anita as well as husbands of both sisters -in -law, namely, Pramod Kumar and Vinay, for the offence of Sections 406 and 498 -A/34 IPC. The Court has been apprised that after investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons and that when they received the summons from the Court, then as a counterblast, Lal Singh filed the impugned complaint, showing the place of incident at Haridwar. In fact, Lal Singh also resides at Delhi but in order to put all the applicants in trouble, he filed the complaint case, as above, creating the territorial jurisdiction of Haridwar Court. It is pertinent to mention that his daughter Sunita, wife of one Pramod, resides at the address which has been shown, as of his own, in the complaint. He filed this complaint on 6.5.2006 and got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 10.5.2006. He also produced his two witnesses, namely, Smt. Sunita (his own daughter) on 22.5.2006 and one witness Sri Dhanbir on 27.5.2006. Then the learned Magistrate, having gone through the statements of complainant as well as above named witnesses, did not find it a fit case to take cognizance in the matter and the same was dismissed on 1.6.2006 u/s 203 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, Lal Singh filed a revision no.235/2006 in the court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Magistrate u/s 203 Cr.P.C. and directed the learned Magistrate to reconsider the matter. So, in pursuance of the directions of learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of cognizance on dated 30.5.2007, whereagainst this petition has been filed.

(3.) NOW , testing the veracity of the facts, as stated in the complaint, it divulges that Lal Singh has averred to have made his dwelling along with his married daughter Smt. Sunita at Haridwar, because in Delhi, he had segregated from his son Anil and daughter -in -law Smt. Rajini, after giving them their due share from his immovable property. Thereafter, he sold the rest of his property at Delhi and had come to Haridwar. The accused persons chased him and came to Haridwar on 10.4.2006 at 8:30 PM., and demanded all capital of the complainant forcibly, with intimidations. The complainant refused to succumb. At this, all the accused persons were enraged and hurling the filthy abuses, began to manhandle him. The complainant, in order to save his life, took shelter in a room, but the accused persons chased him there also and beat him bitterly. They also set ablaze the precious goods kept in the room. When Sunita (complainant's daughter) came to his rescue, the accused assaulted her also. He got himself and his daughter Sunita medically examined in District Hospital, Haridwar on 10.4.06 at 9:05 PM and 9:20 PM respectively and then filed the complaint, as above. It is apparent that this complaint is the outcome of revenge on the part of Lal Singh because Smt. Rajini has launched the prosecution, not only against Lal Singh but also against his other family members. Another prosecution u/s 307/504/34 IPC was also lodged through FIR No.1991 dated 13.12.2005, lodged in P.S. Budh Vihar, Delhi against Sri Sunil (son of Lal Singh) and Sri Vinay (son in law of Lal Singh). Smt. Rajini has also claimed the maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband Anil. So, Sri Lal Singh devised to file this complaint in order to harass the father and other family members of Smt. Rajini. As regards the medical of complainant and his daughter, all so called injuries are very superficial and appear to have been inflicted falsely.