Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Anju Singh vs Sunil Kumar And Another on 13 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 07.05.2025
Judgment delivered on: 13.06.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Leave to Appeal No.215 of 2015
In
Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2015
Smt. Anju Singh .....Appellant
Vs.
Sunil Kumar and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent
No.1-Sunil Kumar.
Mr. Vinod Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Satish Kumar.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
Special Leave to Appeal No.215 of 2015
The present special leave to appeal is preferred
by the appellant-complainant assailing the judgment and
order dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in
Complaint Case No.2826 of 2014 Dhan Singh Vs. Sunil
Kumar and another, whereby, the said Court has
acquitted the respondents-accused persons for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and
under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant-
complainant was married to respondent No.1 on
17.03.1996, but since the very inception of marriage,
respondent No.1 along with respondent No.2 and his
parents (against whom the trial abated due to their
death) used to torture and harass the appellant for
bringing lesser dowry. Respondent No.1 even threw her
out from her matrimonial home on 30.07.1997 in the
greed of more money and later allowed her to stay with
him only on the request of Village Panchayat and only
when she brought Rs.20,000/- in cash. On the aforesaid
facts, the appellant's father filed an application under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was registered as a
Complaint Case on 17.05.2001 and the accused persons
were summoned under the aforementioned Sections.
During trial, accused-Bhopal Singh and Smt. Gargi (in-
laws of the appellant) died and the trial abated against
them.
3. During trial, as many as two witnesses were
produced by the prosecution in order to prove its case.
Thereafter, the statements of respondents/accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
in which, they denied the complainant's story. The
learned Trial Court at the end of trial, has recorded the
findings of acquittal. Hence, this Special Leave to Appeal.
Objection has been filed on Special Leave to Appeal by
the respondent No.2 only.
4. In this matter, the learned trial court
disbelieved the story of prosecution on the grounds that
the complainant only on the basis of blank statements
alleged that a Village Panchayat was held and his
daughter was sent to her matrimonial house along with
Rs.20,000/- cash, but, didn't produce any person as
witness who was present in the said Panchayat. Also, the
learned Trial Court on the basis of questions put to the
victim and her inability to even identify the neighbours
living near her matrimonial house, came to conclusion
that she never lived in her matrimonial house i.e. in
Thitki Kwadpur, P.S. Kotwali Manglore, District
Haridwar.
5. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the story of
the prosecution as the alleged FD's given in dowry are
admitted by the victim to be received by her, when the
divorce proceedings ended between the parties. The
learned Trial Court opined that had the accused persons
and his family members been greedy, they would have
confiscated the entire amount of FD right after the
marriage. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent No.1,
which shows that he encouraged the victim to continue
her studies, filing of RCR petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for resolution of conjugal right also
contributed in disbelief shown by the learned Trial Court
in the prosecution story.
6. The learned Trial Court further disbelieved the
story of prosecution regarding criminal intimidation
meted out to victim as no independent witness or any
sort of evidence was produced by the complainant or by
the victim.
7. Heard and perused the Trial Court Record very
carefully with the help of learned counsel for the parties.
The finding of acquittal recoded by the learned Trial
Court is quite convincing and needs no interference.
Accordingly, special leave to appeal is hereby rejected.
Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2015
8. As a result, the Criminal appeal No.335 of
2015 preferred by the appellant is also dismissed.
9. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the
learned Trial Court for consignment.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.06.2025
PN
