Allahabad High Court
Vijay Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 March, 2011
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13653 of 2008
Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Kamal Singh Yadav,Ray Sahab Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- Government Advocate,P.K. Rao,V.B. Rao
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Shri P.K. Rao, learned counsel for the complainant.
This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.4.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Jhansi District Jhansi in complaint case No.176 of 2008, Police Station Mahila Thana Navabad, district Jhansi (Vandana Vs. Vijay Singh and others), whereby applicants were summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act.
Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged.
Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and father-in-law of the opposite party No.2. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are the Jeths, applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are Jethanis, applicant No.7 is Devar, applicant No.8 is Nanad and applicant No.9 is Nandoi of the complainant.
The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by opposite party No.2 against the applicants and her mother-in-law on 14.11.2007 alleging therein that she was married with Vijay Singh Yadav on 9.5.2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Nagra, Jhansi. Since marriage all the accused persons started demanding a sum of Rs.8 lacs as dowry. Parents of the complainant, some how, after selling land etc., spent a sum of Rs.5 lacs at the time of marriage and further spent Rs. 3 lacs on various ceremonies and purchasing the ornaments for the complainant. Even after this, the accused persons were not satisfied and used to demand a motor cycle and Rs. 2 lacs in cash.
On the occasion of Diwali in the year 2006, the accused persons at about 5 p.m. surrounded the complainant, hurled abuses and threatened to beat her and demanded dowry. On 20.4.2007, her in-laws snatched away her clothes and ornaments and turned out of the house and refused to take her back unless a sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid. On 16.10.2007 at about 10 p.m, the accused persons came to the parental house of the complainant, hurled abuses, demanded Rs.2 lacs and beat the complainant with kicks and fists and threatened her to kill if she was returned to her Sasural without dowry.
The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was treated by the complainant as a complaint. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Smt. Vandana Yadav, Halku and Shri Kamal Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order summoned the applicants to face trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the opposite party No.2. The mother-in-law of the complainant has not been made an accused but the whole family of the husband including his father, brothers, married sister, brother in-law and sisters in-law have been implicated. The attention of the court has been drawn towards the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, whereas initially the complainant stated that all the accused persons used to harass on account of demand of dowry but further admitted that mainly her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to demand dowry. She further admitted in her statement that in the incident of 16.10.2007, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, Jeths, Nanads and Jethanis came to her house for demand of dowry but her Devar was not present at that time, whereas according to the statement of Halku Pw2, Devar of the complainant was also present at that time of incident dated 16.10.2007.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order and submitted that summoning order has been passed on the basis of materials available on record and no interference by this Court is required.
There are specific allegations against the husband and father-in-law of the complainant ( applicant Nos. 1 and 2). Therefore, no good ground for quashing the proceedings against them is made out.
With regards applicant Nos. 3 to 9, who are Jeth, Devar, sisters-in-law sister and Nandoi are concerned, there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry or harassment against them. The allegations against them are general in nature. The complainant admitted in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C that mainly father-in-law and the husband used to demand dowry to her and used to harass her.
In these circumstances, ground of summoning the applicant Nos. 3 to 9 for facing trial are not sufficient and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. It is worthwhile noticing that even the married sister of the applicant No.1 and her husband have been implicated in the case, who live in a different district Jhansi, whereas the husband used to live in district Lalitpur.
The application is partly allowed.
Summoning order in respect of Vijay Singh Yadav and Maheep Singh Yadav is maintained, whereas the impugned summoning order in respect of applicant Nos. 3 to 9, namely, Ram Sevak, Chandan Singh, Smt. Mamta, Smt. Sunita, Azad, Smt. Narmada and Rajendra Singh is quashed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2011
SFH
