Ramchander Sharma & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1742 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Application No.1521 of 2014
           (Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C)

Ramchander Sharma & others                 ........Applicants

                          Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another        ........Respondents


Present:-
      Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
      applicants.
      Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State.
      No one has put in appearance on behalf of private
      respondent, despite personal service.


Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants, that one of the applicants i.e. applicant no.1-Ramchander Sharma has expired during the pendency of this C482 application. Accordingly, the C482 application qua the applicant no.1 is dismissed as abated.

2. By means of the present C482 application, a challenge was made to the Charge-Sheet No.45 of 2014, filed in FIR No.36 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; and, the entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No.2457 of 2014, State vs. Brijesh Sharma & others, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital.

3. A first information report was lodged by respondent no.2-Smt. Pooja Tripathi in Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital against the husband and the present applicants, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law,

brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) and brother- in-law (Devar) on 11.05.2014 at 13:50 hours and on the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report No.36 of 2014, a case crime was registered in the Police Station Kathgodam in the aforesaid sections.

4. In the first information report, respondent no.2 stated that marriage was solemnized between the respondent no.2 and Brijesh Sharma, S/o Ramchander Sharma on 07.12.2013. It is alleged in the first information report that from the inception of marriage, respondent no. 2 was not treated well by the applicants and even on the day of marriage, during marriage circumambulation (Qsjksa dh jLe), a demand for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was made by the applicants. She further narrated in the first information report a long tale of the harassment meted out to her at the hands of the applicants; rather, she went on even to level some very serious allegations upon applicant no.3-Rupesh Kumar (Jeth) and applicant no.5-Yogesh Sharma (Devar) of keeping an evil eye upon her and even went on to allege that they tried to advance for indecent favour to them. The gravamen of the first information report is that the harassment was meted out with respondent no. 2 for the demand of dowry.

5. On the said first information report, after investigation, against all the applicants including the husband, a Charge-Sheet No.45 of 2014, dated 21.08.2014 was submitted by the Investigating Officer. And, on the aforesaid charge-sheet vide order dated 15.09.2014, cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, under

Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the applicants were summoned for facing the trial. Feeling aggrieved by filing of the charge-sheet; summoning order and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2457 of 2014, the instant C482 application has been filed before this Court on 24.11.2014.

6. This Court had issued notices to respondent no.2, which was duly served upon her and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocates have filed their power for the said respondent. Although, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2., but today and even on last two occasion, none appeared on her behalf.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings have been launched by respondent no.2 out of a counterblast to the Criminal Case No.120 of 2014 launched by Ramchander, S/o Late Shri Ramsawroop Sharma (applicant no.1) against respondent no.2 and her family members. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that respondent no.2 barely stayed in her in-laws house for a period of about two months and in this time gap, she kept on visiting her parental house. Finally, on 20.02.2014, she went to her parental house for the marriage ceremony of her brother, which was to be held in the month of April, 2014.

8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that since respondent no.2 was not coming back to the matrimonial house to join her husband, therefore, a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed

by husband of the respondent in the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar being Case No.69 of 2014, Brijesh Sharma vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma, which was decided ex- parte vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2015. Thus, respondent no.2 was not living with the family of the applicants since 20.02.2014.

9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a divorce petition was also filed by the husband of respondent no.2 in the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, which is registered as Divorce Petition No.436 of 2020, Brijesh Sharma vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma, which too was decided ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2021 and the divorce was decreed. He further submitted that the truth of the matter is that since the very beginning, respondent no.2 did not want to stay with the applicants and the allegations, which she narrated in the first information report, are nothing but a bundle of lies just to falsely implicate the applicants in the instant case.

10. The counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 is on record, in which, respondent no.2 supported the contents of her FIR version and submitted that the case is an example where wife was subjected to physical and mental harassment at the hands of the applicants.

11. The counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State and the State has supported the charge-sheet filed after investigation.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, coupled with the fact that respondent no.2 (wife) has not participated in

the proceedings launched by her husband in the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, it is in the opinion of this Court that the allegations made by respondent no.2, in the first information report, appear to be nothing but an exaggeration. The way, respondent no.2 has never contested the suit for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the Divorce Petition filed by her husband, shows that she has no interest with the litigation and the present criminal proceedings, which has been launched by her, is nothing but a tyranny against the applicants.

13. This Court is aware of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., but still, from the first information report, it appears that the allegations raised by respondent no.2, in the impugned first information report, are only bald statements which are not supported by any kind of evidence. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that such incidents, as alleged by her, could not have taken place while she was in her matrimonial house

14. I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants that relations between the parties were severed on 20.02.2014. The family members of respondent no.2, along with 15 to 20 persons, went to bring her back on 04.05.2014 from the house of the applicants in two vehicles. In this regard, a criminal complaint was filed by applicant no.1.

15. In view of the first information report lodged by respondent no.2, the relation between the parties have reached to a place where there is no come back. Thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the applicants' counsel that the proceedings have been launched in counterblast

to the Criminal Case No.120 of 2014, Ramchander Sharma vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma & others launched by the applicants against the entire family members of the private respondent, is worthy of acceptance.

16. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that such a prosecution need not to be allowed to continue which is nothing but a sheer harassment of the applicants at the hands of private respondent, who all throughout has been so careless callous about the litigation launched by her against her husband and family members.

17. The C482 application is hereby allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet No.45 of 2014, filed in FIR No.36 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; and, the entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No.2457 of 2014, State vs. Brijesh Sharma & others, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed, qua the applicant nos.2 to 5.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.07.2023 AK