BRIJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. Rohan Singh, respondent No. 2, father-in-law of the petitioner and father of Smt. Sunita Singh, respondent No 3 who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156 (2), Cr. P. C. for the offences punishable under Sections 504 506 and 498-A I. P. C. alleging, in brief, that the petitioner started demand ing further dowry and with that end in view started harassing her-wife and pressorising her to bring more dowry from 'his wife's father. Respondent No. 3 did not accede to his wishes whereupon he started boating her and treating her cruelly. On 27-11-1991 at about 2-00 p. m. the petitioner came with his wife to the house of the respondent No. 2 in district Haridwar and there told his wife to get from her father Rs. 10,000 in dowry The respondent No. 2 expressed his inability to pay such a large amount upon which he left respondent No. 3 at the house of respondent No 2 and went away threatening that in case she was sent to his house she would be done to death. A report was called from the police. According to the respondent No. 2 the police did not submit a correct report and therefore, he filed an objection stating that cognizance be taken under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr. P. C. The trial court treating this protest petition as complaint, recorded statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and then summoned the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 505 and 498-A, I. P C vide order dated 1-1-1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 47/93, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 25-10-1993 (Annexure-5 to the petition ). Aggrieved by these two orders the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the aforesaid two orders and also the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) IN view of the statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and the evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. it cannot be said that the orders of the two courts below suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. Whether the witnesses are speaking the truth is a question to be decided by the trial court. No finding regarding veracity can be recorded in this writ petition. Respondent No. 3 was examined as a witness under Section 202, Cr. P. C. She has fully supported the complainant's version of the case.