RAKESH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. BEENA BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.K. Dewan learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri Ravindra Nath Rai. Advocate, appearing for the contesting opposite party. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant to bring certain facts on record.

(2.) This application has been filed for quashing the complaint (Annexure No. 2) vide Criminal Case No. 1226 of 1998, Smt. Beena Bansal Vs. Rakesh Kumar Bansal and Ors. pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, Ghaziabad.

(3.) Facts giving rise to the dispute are that the applicants are member of the same family. The applicant No. 1 married contesting opposite party Smt. Beena Bansal on 23.7.1998, some matrimonial dispute ensued between .them, which resulted filing of divorce suit under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which is still pending in the court of District Judge, Delhi. A copy of the plaint has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Another proceedings under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. vide criminal case No. 29 of 1997 was instituted in the court of Judicial Magistrate Hapur and interim maintenance was awarded to the tune of Rs. 250.00 per month. Submission on behalf of the applicant is that Smt. Beena Bansal left her matrimonial home on her own on 24.6.199-1 and did not return, subsequently with a view to cause harassment filed instant complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hapur, on 10.11.1998 under Sections 147, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. read with Sec. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. A copy of the complaint has been annexed as. annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. The opposite party examined herself under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C. and two other witnesses namely Suraj Singh and Vinod Kumar under Sec. 202 Crimial P.C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur summoned the applicants under Sections 498A I.P.C. read with Sec. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. A copy of the summoning order has been annexed as annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. The applicants filed their objections challenging the summoning order, which was also rejected on 29.5.1999. A criminal revision No. 300 of 1999 was filed against the aforesaid order, which was also rejected on 5.11.1999. Submission on behalf of the applicants is for quashing the complaint on the ground that instant complaint has been filed with a view to cause harassment and it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court It is further submitted that a perusal of the complaint shows that no relationship has been mentioned in the body of the complaint and it is only that the accused No. 1 is husband of Smt. Beena Bansal. I have perused the complaint. In paragraph No. 1, it has specifically been stated that the complainant is wife of" Rakesh Kumar Bansal. In the array of the parties, parentage of Rakesh Kumar Bansal is shown as Rameshwar Dayal Bansal, who is also accused No. 2, accused No. 3 is son of Rameshwar Dayal Bansal, accused No. 4 is wife of second son of Rajiv Bansal In paragraph No. 2, it has been stated that all the accused are members of the same family. In the circumstances, it is wrong to say that necessary ingredients are missing from the complaint. It has been brought on record that the accused are living separately and they have separate roll residence. A copy of the electoral own pertaining to the year 1993 as well as identity card issued by the Election Commission of India has been brought on record. It has further been submitted that the opposite party herself has given separate address in the complaint and, she had full knowledge that they are residing separately. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed.