ASHOK KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, husband of opposite party No. 4, through this petition, has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order No. 7476/Ma.Ka.Ni de/Da. Pa. Adhi/Jach/2001-02 dated 22-9-2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer entertaining an application of Smt. Namita Shukla against the order dated 13-10-1999 of Dowry Prohibition Officer, Lucknow rejecting her complaint against the petitioner, has cancelled the said order of 13-10-1999 purportedly in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a mandamus commanding the opposite parties 2 and 3 not to act upon the aforesaid order.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are a few and lie in narrow compass. Indisputably the petitioner got married with opposite party No. 4 on 23-4-1998. It appears that after thier marriage, some differences arose between them and both the parties crossed swords against each other. The opposite party No. 4 made an application to the Dowry Prohibition Officer alleging demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner. The Dowry Prohibition Officer made an enquiry and found the allegations untenable and baseless. He accordingly concluded that the matter did not relate to the demand of dowry and rejecting the complaint of opposite party No. 4 informed the petitioner of the same vide his letter No. 719/Po. K. Dahej/99-2000 dated 27-11-1999. Dissatisfied from rejection of her complaint by the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer, the opposite party No. 4 agitated the matter before the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer , who got an enquiry made into the matter by a two member committee appointed by him and acting upon the report of the said committee concluded about the prima facie correctness of the allegations relating to demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner and treating the application of opposite party No. 4 as an appeal, cancelled the order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer whereby he had rejected the complaint of opposite party No. 4. Aggrieved from this order of the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer, the petitioner has preferred this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the same as also to direct the opposite parties 2 and 3 not to proceed further in the matter on the basis of the impugned order.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel and the opposite parties 4 and 5, who appeared in person.