ISRAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, moved under Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C., the order of cognizance dated 8.6.2007 has been assailed, which was passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar) in criminal complaint case no.1138/2007, Smt. Nazreen Vs. Israr & others, calling Israr (husband), Smt. Saddiqan (mother in law) and Dulha Miyan (father in law) to stand trial for the offence of Sections 452, 364, 498-A IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) IN nutshell, the facts of the case are that Smt. Nazreen was espoused with Israr as per Muslim customs almost 10 years before launching of the complaint on 18.5.2007. Soon after the marriage, she faced the voracious attitude of the applicants as well as other members of the family, namely, Ikrar, Abrar (brothers-in-law) and Ishrat (sister-in-law) on the question of dowry. Almost after a year of wedding, she was expelled from her matrimonial home, so she moved a complaint to the competent officer at Pilibhit where the house of her in-laws was situated. The Officer called all the accused persons and the dispute was settled, by way of filing a compromise, on 9.1.2001. The said compromise was supported by an affidavit of Dulhe Miyan (father-in-law), whereby it was undertaken that Sri Israr (husband) along with his father Dulhe Miyan would not commit any atrocity on the question of dowry any further. It was also undertaken that Smt. Nazreen along with her children will be brought back and that she would be kept with all conjugal affection and would not be assaulted ever. Accordingly, Smt. Nazreen withdrew all the allegations raised by her against her husband and the members of her matrimonial house. Resultantly, a final report no.25 of 2001 was filed by the police too on 23.10.2001, which has the specific mention that the said Final Report was being filed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Just after a couple of years, the dispute demanding the dowry revived, but the same was amicably settled further on 23.10.2004, initiating Smt. Nazreen to take her allegations back again. The said compromise has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel on behalf of rest of the applicants has contended that the allegations of dowry have been said to be made on 19.9.2004 while the incident of alleged kidnapping of the minor daughter is said to have occurred on 30.4.2007, however, both the allegations have been raised in a single complaint, instituted on 18.5.2007. This Court does not see any illegality while raising both the allegations by the complainant in a single complaint, inasmuch as, for each and every time of demand, she was not supposed to institute a complaint separately. Even if the fresh occurrence of demand of dowry is assumed on 19.9.2004, then also, the complaint is within the time limitation, as prescribed u/s 468 Cr.P.C. The allegations of entering into the house with criminal intent and taking away the minor daughter, by way of snatching, that too at the strength of weapons, have been specifically and unambiguously stated in the complaint. The conduct of Israr (husband), prior to launching of the complaint, is enough to show that by way of repeated inducements to Smt. Nazreen, he managed for filing of the compromise and extinguishing the criminal proceedings against him and his family members hitherto.