LAWS(UTN)-2014-3-79

KAUSHAL DEVI Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

Decided On March 05, 2014
Kaushal Devi Appellant
V/S
NARENDRA KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No.1772 of 2010 titled as Narendra Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.

(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed by respondent against 6 named accused, including the present applicants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. PW1 Reena, PW2 Pradeep Kumar Garg and PW3 Rampal were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Documentary evidence was also filed. The Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, having found a prima facie case against Raj Kumar, Smt. Kaushal Devi and Sanjeev, summoned them to face the trial, vide order dated 22.12.2010. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused -applicants.

(3.) APPLICANT no.1 Smt. Kaushal Devi is the mother -in -law, applicant no.2 Sanjeev is the brother -in -law and applicant no.3 Raj Kumar is the husband of respondent's daughter. According to the complaint, complainant's daughter Reena was married to Raj Kumar on 11.11.2005 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The complainant gave articles in the marriage to the best of his capacity. After the marriage of his daughter, her husband Raj Kumar, mother -in -law Smt. Kaushal Devi, brother -in -law Sanjeev and sister -in -law of the victim harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They demanded a motorcycle and cash of Rs.1.5 lakh. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/ - to the mother -in -law of the victim, so that the victim may live in peace, but inspite of that the demand of dowry continued unabated and the victim alongwith her minor daughter was ousted from her matrimonial home.