ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present criminal misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the summoning order dtd. 3/8/2011 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun and the entire proceedings of criminal misc. case no.M-8618/2010 Beena Sharma vs. Arvind Sharma and another, under Sec. 411 of IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant Arvind Kumar Sharma got married to second respondent Beena Sharma on 22/2/1992 at Dehradun. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 16/6/1993. For some time, the parties to the matrimony lived peacefully but thereafter some dispute arose between them. The first applicant thus filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed by Family Judge, Dehradun on 17/8/2006, whereagainst the first applicant preferred a First Appeal before this Court being F.A. No.98 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dtd. 18/9/2008, passed a decree of divorce in favour of the first applicant and the marriage between the parties was dissolved on the condition that the appellant shall pay to the second respondent (wife) one time lump sum alimony amounting to Rs.5,00,000.00within a period of 60 days. In compliance of said judgment, the first applicant paid Rs.5,00,000.00 to the second respondent, through a Draft. Said amount was accepted by the second respondent and the judgment thus attained finality and the marriage between the parties has thus dissolved. On 16/4/2010, second respondent filed an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, stating that on 10/2/2001, when she and her daughter had gone to school, the applicants after breaking the locks entered into the house and, without their permission, loaded all the goods of the respondent no.2 and her daughter in a truck and took it to an unknown place. On the application of the respondent no.2, Judicial Magistrate, treated the application as complaint case and directed the second respondent to give the statement u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Second respondent got examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his daughter u/s 202 Cr.P.C. After hearing the complainant and on perusal of record, Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, vide order dtd. 3/8/2011, summoned the applicants to face trial u/s 411 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the marriage between the parties had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce but even thereafter the second respondent was illegally occupying the house allotted to the first applicant by the department. In this regard, an application was also moved by the first applicant to his Department, whereupon, on 10/2/2010 the Department had taken possession of the house. It is also submitted that in counterblast of aforesaid proceeding, the second respondent moved an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is submitted that no case u/s 411 of IPC is made out against the applicants.