SUMAN UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-1-1994 passed by Sri D.C. Awasthi, the then II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1993 (Joyti Upadhyay v. Vinod Upadhyay and others) under Sections 498-A/406, I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, district Bareilly summoning the accused revisionists.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the accused revisionists and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) The facts, leading to this revision, are that Smt. Jyoti Upadhyay, complainant opposite party No. 3 in this revision, filed a complaint on 4-1-1993 before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly against Vinod Upadhyay, Rama Shanker Updhayay, Bhanu Pratap Upadhyay, Smt. Indu Chaturvedi and Kamla Shanker Upadhyay, with the allegations that she was married to Vinod Upadhyay on 7-12-1989 at Bareilly according to Hindu rites that in the marriage, the father of the complainant had given Rs. 25,000.00 in cash by way of draft, ornaments and other house hold effects valuing Rs. 1 lac by way of gift, that the suit case containing the ornaments and clothes had been handed over by the father of the complainant to her Jethani Smt. Suman and Nanad Indu after the marriage and the cash, which was received in Shagun, was paid to her Jeth Bhanu Pratap; that the draft of Rs. 25,000.00 was handed over to her husband Vinod Upadhyay; that the other domestic goods such as bed, utensils as well as other house hold effects were handed over to these persons, that after the marriage, the complainant went to her in-laws' house and lived there but her father-in-law, mother-in- law, Jeth, Jithani and Nanad had started harassing and misbehaving with her on the ground of bringing less dowry; that for the said reason, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had turned her out of the house by keeping her articles; that thereafter, the complainant gave birth to a son but even thereafter her husband or her mother-in-law and father-in-law had not come to meet her nor any money was sent for expenses; that on account of this, the complainant is facing great mental agony, as neither her husband nor her mother-in-law and father -in-law came there to bring her back nor they returned her goods and that she is living at the house of her father at Bareilly. In the complaint, it was also alleged by the complainant that a registered notice was sent on 7-10-1992 to the accused person to which no reply was received and that they digested the said amount of Rs. 25,000.00 and other articles valuing to Rs. 1 lac and consequently, they may be summoned d and necessary action be taken against them, i.e. the accused persons mentioned in the complaint.