KAMINI VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the cognizance order dated 29.09.2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, in criminal case No. 1557 of 2008, captioned as State v. Sandeep Verma and another. A further prayer was also made to quash the charge sheet dated 11.07.2008, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, filed in the above noted case. A first information report was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the accused -applicants in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, on 07.05.2008 in PS Roorkee, District Haridwar, with regard to an incident which occurred on 14.03.2008. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the present applicants in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved against the said charge sheet and cognizance order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the applicants, who were the mother -in -law and husband respectively of the sister of respondent No. 2.

(2.) WHILE the incident allegedly took place on 14.03.1998, the first information report was lodged on 07.05.2008 against the mother -in -law and husband of the victim. It was alleged that Sweety Malhotra was married to Sandeep Verma on 26.04.2007 in Roorkee. The articles worth Rs. 1,11,000/ - only were presented as gifts in the marriage. The accused persons started harassing the victim for want of sufficient dowry. Even the food was denied to her. She was also threatened with dire consequences.

(3.) HON 'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Those principles can be summarised as under: