IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 199 of 2003 1. Rajeev Verma S/o Kishan Lal Verma 2. Kishan Lal Verma S/o Hardwari Lal 3. Smt. Chandrawati W/o Kishan Lal Verma 4. Sanjeev S/o Kishan Lal Verma 5. Pradeep S/o Kishan Lal Verma All R/o 66 K.V. Purana Bijli Ghar Mahesh Marg, Modinagar Thana Modinagar, District Ghaziabad 6. Smt. Rajni W/o Sanjay Verma R/o LI/1033 Shastri Nagar Sapna Quarter, Meerut Thana Meerut … Petitioners Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. S.H.O., P.S. Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar 3. Smt. Babita @ Madhuri W/o Rajeev Verma, D/o Satypal Verma R/o 77 Purani Tehsil Roorkee Thana Gangnagar District Haridwar … Respondents Sri Sidhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner Learned A.G.A. for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the complaint dated 06.11.2001 filed by respondent No. 3 as well as chargesheet dated 25.11.2001 submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 237 of 2002, under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the learned Magistrate. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 – Smt. Babita @ Madhuri moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 147 of I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleging therein that the petitioners started taunting and troubling and demanded dowry from her after the marriage. On the basis of the complaint, the learned Magistrate directed the police station concerned to register the case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 06.11.2001 against the petitioners and the case was registered as Case Crime No. 237 of 2001 at police station gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The police after investigating the matter submitted the chargesheet on 25.11.32001 against the petitioners. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid complaint as well as submission of chargesheet, the petitioners preferred this petition before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Siddartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 5. After going through the record and after having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the allegation related to the petitioners No. 1 to 5 are the disputed questions of fact. The question whether there was any direct evidence or not is not to be taken into consideration while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court while exercising the powers would not be justified to quash any proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that the initiation of it does not amount to abuse of process of court. On the basis of the allegation made in the complaint itself against the petitioners No. 1 to 5 and are also living in the same house with the husband of the respondent No. 3, I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained or not. It is the function of the trial judge where the evidence is yet to come and the matter is to be decided finally. At this stage, the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The allegation made in the First Information Report as well as the complaint, if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety constitute prima-facie case against the petitioners No. 1 to 5. 6. I therefore, do not find any merit in the case pertaining to the petitioners No. 1 and 2 and the petition on behalf of petitioners No. 1 to 5 is liable to be dismissed. I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings pending against them in the court concerned. 7. Accordingly the petition pertaining to the petitioners No. 1 to 5 is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 16.09.2003 pertaining to the petitioners No. 1 to 5 is vacated. 8. Now, I come to the case related to the petitioner No. 6 who is the sister of the husband of respondent No. 3. it has been categorically stated in paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit filed along with the petition that petitioner No. 6 – Smt. Rajni is residing separately in a different district, with her husband and has no concerned with the dispute between the respondent No. 3 and her husband. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 filed a counter affidavit before this Court in which, the averments made in paragraph in the accompanying affidavit filed along with the petition has not been specifically controverted. The reply has not been given in the counter affidavit and the pleas of living separately cannot be used as a weapon of difference. 10. It is thus clear that the plea taken by the petitioner No. 6 that she is living separately and have no concerne dwith the dispute has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3. The record shows that she is a married women and being married sister of the petitioner No. 1. She is also living separately with her husband in another District. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner No. 6 is involved in the matter of dowry demand from the respondent No. 3 or her parents. 11. The provision of Section 498-A of I.P.C is not intended to be used as weapon for false implication and this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must deal with the persons responsible for false implication with iron hand. The bald allegations made against the petitioner No. 6 seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. 12. There is nothing in the complaint which connects the petitioner No. 6 with an offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. or any other offence, the cognizance was taken. It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A. The cruelty must be of such nature so as to coerce the wife to meet illegal demands or commit suicide. Therefore, the evidence of demand of dowry and ill treatment must be cogent and reliable against the accused persons. 13. In order to submit his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein keeping in view the growing tendency for implicating all relatives of in-laws of victim (wife) on the matter of matrimonial dispute the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 2993 (S.C.) has held:- “Where the evidence disclosed that accused nos. 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to person other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if any discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.” 14. Further, similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh & others Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 507 has observed as below:- “Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the FIR and the contents of charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences viz. Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time i.e. between March and October 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of the informant by her sister-in-law (the appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the FIR is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash WC and she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave”. It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed.” 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that in case, if the prosecution is permitted to continue against the petitioner No. 6, then there will be an abuse of process of the court, because to my mind, the petitioner No. 6 being person not connected with the crime for which the cognizance has been taken against her, will have to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. 16. For the reasons stated above, I come to the conclusion that the proceedings against the petitioner No. 6 are liable to be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 18. The proceedings pertaining to the petitioner No. 6 only in complaint dated 06.11.2001 filed by respondent No. 3 as well as chargesheet dated 25.11.2001 submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 237 of 2002, under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the learned Magistrate are quashed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07.01.2008 ASWAL