1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ffaimm Ranch Cr.M.P. No. 6% /2011 @I PETITIONERS 1. Nav'egnLata, S/o. Late Harish— chandra' Lata, Aged about 32 years. ACCUSED Praveen Lata, S / o. Late Harishchandra Lata, Aged about 26 years. ‘ ' 3. Smt. Meera Lata, W/o. Late Harishchandra Lata, Aged about 62 years. 4. Alka Lata, S/o. Harishchandra Lata, Aged about 29 years. A11 are resident of Village Kharora, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS SPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, OSECUTOR Through: RS. City Kotwali, Raigarh This petition is being preferred seeking quashrnent of the criminai preceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, registered at Criminal Case No.160/201 l as well as the quashmeht of Charge sheet dated 13.2.2004. CRIMINAL MISCLLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482‘LOF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The petitioners most humbly beg to submit as under :— 1. That, on 4.2.2004 one Mrs. Anita Sharma had lodged a police report before the S.H.O. of Police Station City RE R i XI~HC—-7 8 WWW mmm WW W$€R mmm B : Hon’bie Shri Manindra M ?n09=2911 Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, c unsel for the petitioner. x: Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy G vernment Advocate for the State. ' Heard on admission. By this petition under Sect on 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for q'uashing the charge sheet and c iminai proceedings in criminai case No.i60/11 pending in the Couit of Judiciai Ma istrate, First Class, Raigarh. Learned counsei for the petitioner contended that the aliegations of commission of offence under Se ion 498 CrPC is confined to the period during which the complainant — Anita S arma resided in her matrimoniai house. He submits that as no part of offen is alieged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Ma istrate, 15‘ Class, Raigarh: no cognizance could be taken and the criminal case is herefore abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitt d that the. aiiegation that the petitioners went to Raigarh and in the name of de and of Rs.1!00,000/-, administered threat and assaulted the brothers of the com Iainant, is entirely different and distinct incident not in connection with the allega on of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC. lt is further contended that the allegations contained in the charge sheet, e—if’ based on FIR and diary statemen are whoiiy improbable, afterthought and on the face of it, frivolous. The iast cont ntion is that there has been enormous delay in trial of the case. The charge sh t was submitted in the Sourt and the charges were framed in the year 2005 ut the trial has not been concluded till date. Therefore, the criminal proceeding deserve to be quashed. A perusai of written report bmitted by the compiainant — Anita Sharma on 4!2/O4 shows that it has been leged that the complainant was subjected to S oh n Shrivastava J. Q A c XI~HC-7 8 @ 3am, @m, W mm (’Ywfmgw mzoo ” mm (WK) WWW WWW mmm ‘— Q ,_ $qi‘aq' a araimm HmEf§ [3% T‘3E{ cruelty in connection with demard of dowry and detaiis of demand and cruelty have been given in the applicatian. it has aiso been stated therein that huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was being demanded for purchase of vehicle and in that connection, she was subjected to marpeet. The compiaint aiso shows that the demand continued as aiso the crueity and on 21/10/2001, the compiainant’s brother—Subhash went to Kharora requesting the petitioners not to commit crueity but the petitioners did not give up their demand of Rs.1 .00,000i- and the brother of the complainant was beaten and the complainant was sent back along with her brother to Raigarh and again phone calls were made to make arrangements of Rs.1 ,00,000/- then only the compl and then on 15/1 21'03. the petiti gundas came to Raigarh and thr at was administered that if Rs.1 .00,000I- is not given, the complainant would not e allowed to live in the matrimonial house nor alive and the complainant’s broth rs were assaulted. Similar are the allegations contained in the case diary statem nts of the complainant - Anita Sharma and her brother - Subhash Sharma, Dines Sharma, Suresh Sharma and Naresh Sharma and similar is the case diary state ents of the mother of the complainant and other relatives. if what has been alleged in the written complaint, FIR and case diary statements are looked into, it is a parent that the threat for not fulfiliing demand and assault has been committe at Raigarh also in a specific incident dated ' 15/1 2/03. At this stage, this Cou would not examine the reliability or veracity of such allegations but if the allegat are taken on its face value, a part of offence can be said to have been comm at Raigarh also. Whether the allegations con ined in the charge sheet are false, iiabie to be believed or disbelieved, is a matte in the realm of the appreciation of evidence by nant would be taken back to matrimoniai house s along with other members of the family and o ‘ i r i s i p XI-HC—78 3a WW, aw”W magma CYwfI/wga'7 H 200 amt 11365 (imam anamwm am 31mm mm am r E; f WW%‘?§&W % aimW he trial Court and not for this §oui a Is s age. ere ore, on e ground as xamined above, no case for interference is made out. However, I nnd that the riminal case has remained pending since long. The charge sheet appears to have been filed in the year 2005 and re than 6 years have elapsed. In these circumstances, it is irected that the Iearned trial Court shail conclude the trial expeditiously an as soon as possible, without ailowing Unnecessary adjournment to the prose ution or the defence. ~ With the aforesaid observations the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Daepii Manindra Mohan ShrivaStava Judge