SHARDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the charge -sheet no. 51/08 dated 23.8.2008 submitted against the petitioners (Annexure no. 1 to this petition) and the impugned order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow (Annexure No. 2 to his petition) taking cognizance of the offence under sections 498A, 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.Mahila Thana, District Lucknow pending in Criminal Case No. 7549 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 30 of 2008 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same order.

(2.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that an FIR was lodged by Smt. Saroj Chauhan opposite party no. 2 (wife of petitioner no. 3) on 22.5.2008 at 15.10 O' clock in case crime no. 30 of 2008 under section 498A, 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at police station -Mahila Thana, District -Lucknow against Ritesh Singh, husband of opposite party no. 2 (petitioner no. 1), Surendra Singh, father in law of opposite party no. 2 (petitioner no. 2), Smt. Sharda Singh, mother in law of opposite party no. 2 (petitioner no. 1) and seven others, namely Sailesh Singh (Jeth), Smt. Neetu Singh (Jethani), Smt. Shakuntala Devi (cousin mother in law), Shri Kratesh Singh (Cousin Devar), Pankaj Singh (Cousin Devar), Randhir Singh (Fufa) and Uma Singh (Buva) alleging therein that the marriage of opposite party no. 2. was solemnized at House No. 41/3209, Urmilapuri Surendra Nagar, Chinhat, District Lucknow with Ritesh Singh son of Surendra Singh, resident of Saroj Building near Station Road, 2nd Floor, Room No. 5, P.S. Vikroli Mumbai (Maharastra) on 26.4.2002, according to Hindu rites and rituals. The father of opposite party no. 2 was serving with Union of India in the Ministry of Defence on the post of Chief Supervisor at Lucknow. The marriage of opposite party no. 2 was performed by her parents with the help of their friends and colleagues. Her parents incurred expenses nearly of Rs. 11 lac in the marriage. The list of items given in the marriage was also annexed with FIR. It is further alleged that just after her marriage, all the family members of husband including Surendra Singh(Father in law), Smt. Sharada Singh (mother in law) , Ritesh Singh (husband), Shailendra Singh, (Jeth), Smt. Neetu Singh (Jethani) Smt. Shakuntala Devi (cousin mother in law), Shri Kratesh Singh and Pankaj Singh (cousin Devars), Randhir Singh(Fufa) and Smt. Uma Singh (Buva) were living jointly started harassment of opposite party no. 2 by demanding the cash and ornaments. She was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by them. They also used to lock her in room and toilet for several hours. Randhir Singh (Fufa) and Smt. Uma Singh (Buva) played the role of instigating the family members of her husband. It is further alleged therein that considering the prestige of both families, when the opposite party no. 2 came back to her parental house for the first time, she did not tell anything to her parents about the cruelty caused upon her, but when she could not bear the mental and physical cruelty caused upon her by the aforesaid persons and felt that demand of dowry could not be fulfilled by her parents and also smelling danger to her life, then she told to her parents and brother that in laws are demanding Rs. 8 lac in cash, gold chain and ring to all the family members. As the demand was beyond capacity of her father, he with folded hands requested to the husband and his parents to keep her. Thereafter she was taken to in law's house where she became pregnant in December, 2003. When she was pregnant, she was compelled to do all domestic works including cleaning, washing, wipering and washing clothes of all the family members; get them drought on the roof, but instead of that she was not giving full diet. When she used to go to kitchen for cooking, the nob of the gas cylinder left knowingly opened by the family member of in -law's house. She tolerated all this for about six months. She tried to adjust herself with in laws but when torture became over, she called her father on telephone. Her father came to her in laws' house. She came with her father in pregnant stage to parental house. The in -laws have neither taken care of her nor tried to contact her even on telephone. However, she gave birth to a male child on 22.9.2004 in Saint Joseph Hospital, Lucknow. Her father informed immediately to the in laws of her daughter, but nobody came to see her and her child. After lot of persuasion, the in -laws came to Lucknow in the month of January, 2005 and she went to in -laws house. However, the demands of in -laws and cruelty upon her remained continue. An attempt was made to kill her by throwing from roof and also by administering poison, but being vigilant about situation, they could not succeed. She was not providing meal to her. On account of ill treatment, she gradually became weak and blood vomiting also started. The in -laws also made conspiracy of killing her by locking into room and putting her on fire. However, she came to know this plan. She immediately telephoned to her father saying that her life is in danger, so come very soon and take her from here immediately. Her father reached in -laws' house. In presence of her father, she was beaten and demand of Rs. 8 lac, golden chain and ring to all the family members was made by the husband and his parents. Her father tried to satisfy the father -in -law, mother -in -law and husband of her daughter that he is not in a position to fulfill these demands. But they said that without fulfilling these demands, they shall not paint her again in the house. They expelled her from the matrimonial home after beating her and snatching her belongings, clothes and ornaments. Consequently she came back to her parental house with her child.

(3.) THE investigation was conducted by the investigating officer. In the investigation he found that only the petitioners are involved in the alleged offence and rest seven petitioners are not involved therein as no evidence is available against them. Consequently charge -sheet (Ext. Ka -1) was filed in the court. On the basis of that charge -sheet summoning order was passed against the petitioners/accused persons.