KANCHAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge -sheet dated 29.05.2000 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 291 of 2000, captioned as State vs. Tanuj and others, under Section 498 -A, 315 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge/ A.C.J.M., Roorkee.

(2.) A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 3 Smt. Seema against the applicants at PS Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, which was registered as case crime no. 14 of 2000, under Section 498 -A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the investigation of the case, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused -applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 315 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on the said charge -sheet. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to respondent no. 3, she was married to applicant no. 3 on 11.05.1999 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Informant -victim's father gave articles and gifts according to his capacity in the marriage. Victim's husband Tanuj Kumar Singh, father -in -law Ashok Singh, mother -in -law Kanchan Devi and sister -in -law Pramisha Singh were not satisfied with the articles given in the marriage. They abused her and also ridiculed her. The victim thought that everything will be alright in due course and therefore, kept mum. In her complaint, she stated that she went to her matrimonial home four times, but on each occasion, she had to incur the wrath of her in -laws, who assaulted and harassed her. She rang up to her father on 12.12.1999. Her husband and father -in -law came to know of it (re: phone call). Then they dropped her to her parental home on 13.12.1999. Her husband and father -in -law told that she would not be taken to her matrimonial home unless a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was paid. When victim told her ordeal to her parents, she was taken to Government Hospital for treatment. She was pregnant.