KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12. 1. 2010 passed by the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No. 159/2009 whereby cognizance was taken against them for the offences under sections 498-A. 406 and 323, I.P.C. and against the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 1, Hanumangarh in revision whereby the Revisional Court has upheld the order taking cognizance for the offences under sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. but has quashed the same for the offence under section 323. I.P.C.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Urvashi filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 20.5.2008 which was forwarded to the Police Station Hanumangarh junction where an F.I.R. No. 447/2008 was registered for the offences under sections 498- A, 406 and 323, I.P.C. the allegation levelled in the complaint was that the complainant was married to petitioner No. 3 Arun Kumar on 3.7.2003 at Hanumangarh Junction. The complainant also alleged that substantial dowry was given at the time of marriage and was entrusted to the accused under the belief that the same would be returned back as and when demanded. It was also alleged that right after the marriage, the accused started harassing and treating the complainant with cruelty in relation to the demand of a sum of L 5 lacs and a luxury car. It was further alleged that five days after the marriage the complainant returned back to her father's house upon onset of Shrawan Month. In her absence and just after 10 days of the marriage the accused persons sold the Maruti car given to her in dowry. After the Shrawan Month was over. the accused No. 1 i.e. Arun came to fetch the complainant and without accepting any hospitality took the complainant back to Sangaria. When the complainant reached Sangaria, she came to know about the car having been sold without her consent. On enquiry, the accused allegedly taunted her in relation to demand of dowry and also told her that the car was not of their choice and thus it had been sold. It was further alleged that accused persons continued to treat the complainant with cruelty in relation to the demand of Z 5 lacs and a luxury car. The complainant was not provided proper food and she was assaulted and kept locked up in the room. The complainant in- formed her parents about these cruel acts of the accused on which they tried to pacify them but the accused did not relent. The complainant was taken to Jaipur at the residence of the accused persons Dr. Krishan Chander, Smt. Girdavari Devi, Arun and Vinod and there too she was harassed for demand of dowry. The complainant further alleged that on numerous occasions, while being taken to Jaipur. she requested the accused to permit her to meet her parents but the accused did not allow her to meet the parents despite passing through Hanumangarh Junction. She was not given anything to at during the journey period of 12-13 hours. After being taken to Jaipur also, she was continuously treated with cruelty. She further stated that after some time of the marriage, she conceived where after the accused intensified their cruel acts. The complainant's father got her treated at Jaipur and Hanumangarh Junction for her ailments. The Doctors prescribed a nutritional diet for her but the accused did not provide her the same and forced her to remain hungry. She was abused and was forced to do heavy work even in her pregnancy period and the demand ofL 5 lacs and the luxury car continued. The complainant further alleged that she gave birth to a boy on 30.8.2004 at a nursing home at Hanumangarh junction through a Cesarean Operation. The accused Nos. 5 and 6 i.e. Satpal and Santa came to meet her and demanded 5 lacs and a luxury car in Chhuchhak. The other accused persons also talked to the complainant over phone and repeated the aforesaid demand and threatened her that if the demand was not met, she would not be taken back to the matrimonial home. She alleged that after the child was born, she waited for her husband to take her back to the matrimonial home but all in vain. She further alleged that number of Panchayats were held for saving the marriage. The complainant herself, her father. her brothers Raghvendra, Vikram and other persons attempted to settle the matter so that the matrimonial ties could be saved but the accused persisted with their demands and flatly refused to take the complainant back in matrimony unless their demands were met. She alleged that two Panchayats were held at Jaipur in November, 2004 and May, 2005. two Panchayats were held at Sangariya in June, 2005 and January, 2006 and a few Panchayats were also held at Hanumangarh Junction. The complainant alleged that last Panchayat was held at Hanumangarh Junction on 9.3.2008. In the last panchayat also, the accused persons refused to take the complainant back to the matrimonial house unless their demands were fulfilled. The complainant requested the accused to return her Stridhan articles but the accused did not accede to the same.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet only against the petitioner Arun for the offence under section 498-A. I.P.C.