LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-95

SATENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER

Decided On August 23, 2012
SATENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, prayer has been made to quash the chargesheet no. 120/2007 filed against the accused applicant in Crime No. 636/2007, under Section 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The said case, titled as State v. Satendra Kumar, is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Ranjana was wedded to the accused applicant Satendra Kumar on 13.4.2005. Within a month of the marriage, she was forced to leave her matrimonial house due to atrocious conduct on the part of her husband and his family members. She was allegedly expelled from her matrimonial house on 15.5.2005. Negotiations between the two families went on in order to settle the dispute peacefully, but all in vain. Thereafter Smt. Ranjana filed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 206/2006 against her husband seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. She also filed a Complaint Case No. 667/2006 on 18.9.2006 against her husband under Section 406 IPC for return of her Stridhan which was offered by her father and other family members in the marriage. Husband Satendra Kumar also filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it was stated that Smt. Ranjana was fetched by her father himself on 7.6.2005 on the pretext of attending some marriage in the relation and thereafter she did not return. This all gave rise to lodging of an FIR on 27.4.2007 by Smt. Ranjana against her husband and other in-laws. Police after the investigation absolved other family members of Satendra Kumar, but chargesheeted him under Section 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereagainst this petition has been filed.

(3.) After filing of this petition, this Court, as an interim measure, stayed the proceedings before the trial court vide order dated 27.2.2008. However, petition was not admitted. It is still pending for admission.