MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. SEEMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 375 of 2002, State v. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Ors. , under Sections 498-A/323/506 I. P. C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the opposite party No. 2 is wife of applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 2 is her father-in-law and applicant No. 3 is her sister-in- law. THE opposite party No. 2 had earlier filed a complaint against the above named accused applicants on 19-3-1998 under Sections 498-A/120-B/417/506 and 406 I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and in that case the accused were summoned and the case was tried by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Additional Civil Judge (J. D.)/judicial Magistrate Court No. 3, Aligarh and he decided it vide his judgment and order dated 8-7- 2003. It appears from perusal of the judgment that the complainant had stated before the Court that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons and no atrocity was committed upon her and all her Stridhan was with her. In view of her statement the accused were acquitted.

(3.) IT is to be seen that the O. P. No. 2 had already filed a complaint in March, 1998 in respect of the allegation of demand of dowry and atrocities etc. but it appears that during the pendency of that case a compromise had taken place between the O. P. No. 2 and her husband and so she gave a statement in the Court denying the complaint allegations and so the accused were acquitted. She had also lodged the present F. I. R. on 10-2-2001 in which as pointed out above, the allegations made in the earlier complaint, were repeated, and the subsequent incidents, which took place after 4-5-2000, were added. Since the case in regard to the incidents which took place prior to the compromise between the parties on 4-5- 2000 had already been tried by the Magistrate and an acquittal order had been passed in respect of those incidents in favour of the accused persons, I am of the view that there is no question of second trial in respect of those incidents which were subject-matter of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the present accused persons. The I. O. has submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons on the basis of total allegations in the F. I. R. , but, as I have already pointed out above, the trial cannot take place in respect of those incidents which were subject-matter of the previous complaint filed by the complainant. This trial can proceed in respect of those incidents only which took place after 4-5-2000 as stated in the F. I. R. This application moved under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , therefore, deserves to be allowed to this extent only that no second trial shall take place against the accused applicants in respect of those incidents which were covered in the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the accused applicants and which were tried in Criminal Case No. 164 of 2002, Smt. Seema Devi v. Mahesh Chandra and Ors. , by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh.