RANI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.

(2.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4234 of 2006 (Smt. Sushma Sharma v. Pandit Kallu and others), under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and also for quashing of the summoning order dated 28.1.2005.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that in the present case, the whole family, consisting of father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and other members of the family including the applicants, who are 'nand and 'nandoi, as alleged, had made demand of dowry alongwith others to Smt. Sushma Sharma, who got married to Kallu @ Ravi about six years back. Learned counsel further submits that in the statement of Smt. Sushma Sharma, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, she states that she was beaten for demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/ -. There is general allegation in her statement with regard to beating, but there is absolutely no specific averment as to who gave beating to Smt. Sushma Sharma. Even, there is no medical evidence to support this allegation. As regard demand of dowry, she has named her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and seven others including applicants, who have asked her Rs. 50,000/- for business purposes. Learned counsel also submits that the present applicants have no concern with the family of Smt. Sushma Sharma as their marriage took place 15 years prior from the date of the incident, as mentioned in the complaint. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicants were residing in district Moradabad and, as such, they had no concern with the family of Smt. Sushma Sharma, who admittedly was residing in Bramhpuri, Delhi with her husband, Kallu @ Ravi. In our present social status, the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law have a significant role to play in the affairs of the family, but other relations like nand and nandoi, who got married long back, as in the present case and who were also residing away would mind their own business as certainly they would gain nothing by asking for money from Smt. Sushma as demand of dowry. A line of distinction has, therefore, to be drawn with regard to their complicity, as in the present case. In the present state of affair, the other relatives of the husband have been arrayed as an accused with an intention to compel the husband to subjugate and terrorize him. There is no specific allegation in the statement of Smt. Sushma Sharma that she was subjected to cruelty by the applicants. There is general allegation against ten named persons and others including the applicants Smt. Rani (nand) and her husband, Kamal (nandoi) for demand of Rs. 50,000/- for running some business, which person was needing money to run business, is certainly not known.