NIKITA & ANOTHER Vs. BHAWNA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek to quash the summoning order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.697 of 2009 titled as Smt. Bhawna Sharma vs. Sameer Sharma & others under Sections 406, 452, 504 & 506 IPC. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned compliant case pending before the said court.

(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed by complainant/respondent against accused persons-applicants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, who in turn referred the same to the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. After recording of statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 452, 504 & 506 I.P.C., vide order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicants.

(3.) Complainant/Respondent gave her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and supported the contents of the criminal complaint case. Her statement was corroborated by the statements of PW1 Ashok Beri and PW2 Rajeshwar Dayal Sharma. Earlier, an application was also submitted by the complaint-respondent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, but no action was taken on the same, therefore, the complainant-respondent was compelled to file the criminal complaint case against the accused-applicants. After having found a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 452, 504 & 506 IPC, the applicants were summoned to face the trial. Apart from the allegations of assault, abuse, threatening and house-trespass, it was also alleged that the applicants did not return Stridhan of complainant/respondent. The learned Magistrate gave cogent reasons while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2009. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is called for in the said order.