MOHD ALI SIDDIQUI Vs. RESHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicants against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the JMFC Satna (Shipra Patel) in Complaint Case No.350/2009 by which a complaint was registered against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has filed a complaint before the JMFC Satna to the effect that she is a wife of applicant No.1. Applicants No.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No.1. Applicants No.4, 5 and 6 are the sisters of applicant No.1. Applicant No.7 is grand daughter of applicant No.2, whereas applicant No.8 is son-in-law of applicant No.2. All of them were residing with applicant No.1 at Jodhpur. THE marriage of respondent No.1 took place with applicant No.1 in the year 2001. THE applicants were harassing the respondent No.1. THEy were not providing proper food to her. THEy used to assault her and to confine her in a room. THEy were demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her father. On 25.2.2008, applicants No.1 and 4 took her to Satna and they left her at Satna railway station. Ultimately, she reached to her parents' house. At railway station Satna, applicants No.1 and 4 again warned her that if she would not provide a sum of Rs.1 lakh, then she has no space in the house of applicant No.1. On 26.2.2008 applicant No.3 also threatened the respondent No.1 with demand of Rs.1 lakh. THEreafter the respondent No.1 had lodged an FIR at Mahila Police Station Satna on 26.2.2008, but no action was taken by the police, therefore she had lodged a complaint against the applicants which was registered by the JMFC Satna vide order dated 18.11.2008.

(3.) AS far as implication of applicants No.4 to 8 is concerned, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) and this Court in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela (supra) are not be applicable in the present case, because it is clearly alleged that the applicant No.1 was residing with his parents as well as three sisters, one brother-in-law and one niece. It is categorically alleged by the complainant that all of them were involved in harassment of the complainant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant is implicating the distant relatives of applicant No.1 though they were not involved in the crime. In such circumstances, the evidence given by the complainant and her witnesses cannot be ignored for the applicants No.4 to 8 even. At present there is no ground established by the applicants so that trial pending before the JMFC Satna may be quashed.