UPENDRA PATIL Vs. MEGHA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the private complaint marked as Annexure-P/1, dated 28/3/2007 as well as the order impugned dated 30/1/2008 passed in Criminal Case No. 968/05 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for registering a case against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

(2.) The case emerges out of the private complaint filed by the respondent before the court marked as Annexure- P/1, dated 28/3/2007 is to the effect that the complainant/ respondent-Smt. Megha Patil was married to the petitioner on 13/12/2006 at Pune as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs. It is stated in the complaint that from the next day of wedding, her mother-in-law, Smt. Indira Patil and elder sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Charu Sheela Gedam started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues and she was subjected to cruelty for giving insufficient dowry. She stated that her father and brothers as per their capacity performed well marriage and also gave cash amount, utensil and gold ornaments in dowry but the members of her in-laws' family were not happy and she was subjected to harassment for demand of Rs. Two lacs by her husband on the instigation of her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She was told that until and unless the aforesaid amount is not paid, she will not be allowed to live in her matrimonial house. Even she was not given food and beaten by the accused. When the complainant realised that her life was in danger, she was compelled to tell everything to her parents who became very upset on hearing her woes. When her brother Deepak Shinde came to the matrimonial house at Puna on 4/2/2007 at that time also he was insulted and told by the accused persons to take her sister back with him till the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- of dowry is not paid. She stated that her ornaments were taken out by mother-in- law and sister-in-law and she came to her parental house only with wearings and one suitcase. In para 3 of the complaint again it was pleaded that on 22/2/2007 one phone call was made by Deepak Shinde (brother of the complainant) to the father-in-law of complainant to come and bring his sister back on which again it was stated by the father-in-law to keep his sister with him till arrangement of amount of Rs. Two lacs is made. On 25/2/2007, petitioner Upendra Patil came to Gwalior and the complainant and her brother both were told by him that unless and until the amount of Rs. Two lacs was not paid, the entry of complainant at her matrimonial house at Puna is not possible and by saying this the petitioner Upendra left the house of the complainant. In such circumstances, she filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior praying for registering the case against the accused-persons for commission of offence under section 498-A/34 of I.P.C. as well as section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and punishing them in accordance with law.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the complainant, the inquiry report of Mahila Police Station, Padav, vide Ex.P/5, dated 15/10/2007 as well as the statements of the complainant and her witnesses examined under section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., came to hold vide order dated 30/1/2008 that so far as accused/respondents No. 2 to 4, i.e. Prabhakar Patil, (father-in-law), Smt. Indira Patil (mother-in-law) and Smt. Charu Sheela Gedam (sister-in-law), the complaint against these accused-persons is not maintainable because as per the own statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the incident of demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and causing cruelty to the complainant for meeting out such a demand by the aforementioned accused No. 2 to 4 happened at Puna. There is no allegation of causing maltreatment for demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- against these accused persons at Gwalior. Hence, in such premises, the complaint against the aforesaid accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is held to be not maintainable and dismissed. So far as accused- respondent No. 1-Upendra Patil is concerned, the court has found prima facie case against him for prosecuting under the alleged offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner, who is husband of the complainant has preferred this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.