SHER SINGH PATHANIA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for quashing of order dtd. 7/8/2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur, in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2018, affirming order dtd. 19/12/2017, passed by the learned JMIC, Court No 4, Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 68-1 of 2016, in case FIR No. 46/16 dtd. 23/2/2016, whereby the accused came to be charged under Sec. 323, 504 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 498-A of the IPC.

(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that, at the behest of the complainant namely Shweta Pathania, FIR bearing No. 46 of 2016 dtd. 23/2/2016, came to be registered against the petitioners as well as Shri Vikrant Singh Pathania, under Ss. 323 and 504 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 498-A of IPC. Complainant alleged that after her marriage on 26/9/2014, she was not only maltreated by the petitioners and their son, but she was repeatedly harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. Complainant also alleged that after solemnization of marriage, petitioners as well as their son, who happened to be her husband, constantly pressurized her for bringing the dowry and also gave her beatings. On the basis of her complaint, FIR referred herein above, came to be lodged against the present petitioners and Vikrant Singh Pathnia, who is also accused in the case. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent Court of law, who vide order dtd. 19/12/2017, framed charges under Ss. 323 and 504 read with Sec. 34 and 498 of IPC against the present petitioners as well as Vikrant Singh Pathania, who has chosen not to come present before this Court.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order framing charge, petitioners, who happened to be father-in-law and mother in law of the complainant namely Shweta Pathania, preferred criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 Cr.PC., in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, who vide order dtd. 7/8/2018, dismissed the same, as a consequence of which, order framing charge passed by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Sec. 482 Cr.PC., praying therein to set-aside the order framing charge as well as order passed by the learned Sessions Judge affirming the same.