MOHD AMZAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 25.10.2008, summoning order dated 22.04.2010, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 41 of 2010, State vs Amzad, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage between the applicant and respondent no. 4 was solemnized on 28.03.2004. It is also stated that two sons were born out of the wedlock. It is pleaded on behalf of the applicant that after the matrimonial relations between the applicant and respondent no. 4 soured, the applicant divorced his wife (respondent no. 4) on 04.07.2008, and a deed (copy Annexure-6 to the petition) was executed which is not only signed by respondent no. 4, but also by her father, as a witness. It is contended that after the divorce, respondent no. 4 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 09.09.2008, and got the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner relating to harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.

(3.) It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 4 that Annexure 5, annexed with the petition, does not contain the signatures of respondent no. 4. The Court has compared the signatures of Smt. Sarvari respondent no. 4 made on Annexure 5 (settlement deed) with the signatures made in the counter affidavit. The Court finds that there is similarity in signatures of respondent no. 4 in both the documents and, therefore, it does not lie in her mouth to say that she was not a signatory to the settlement deed dated 04.07.2008.