IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 299/2009 Dhan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ……Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 2. With CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 294/2009 Smt. Anju Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ……Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 2. 1st December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these petitions are being adjudicated together by this common judgment and order as these petitions arise out of the same order dated 20.4.2007, passed by the Family Judge, Roorkee, though in two different applications moved by respondent no. 2 Sunil. One application was moved by Sunil Kumar against Smt. Anju Singh (happened to be his wife till 28.2.2005). This application was registered as Case No. 44/2007. Sunil Kumar moved another application against Dhan Singh (happened to be father-in-law of Sunil Kumar till 28.2.2005) and this application was registered as Case No. 43/2007 by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Both the aforesaid applications were moved under Section 340 CrPC with the prayer to summon the petitioners Dhan Singh and Smt. Anju Singh and to punish them for the reason that Smt. Anju Singh with the succour of his father Dhan Singh got 2 issued a permanent resident certificate from the revenue authorities showing her residence at E-372/1, Subhash Nagar, Roorkee, and on the basis of that certificate, she also secured the job of a Government Teacher. 2. Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, to highlight the controversy are that Smt. Anju Singh was espoused with Sunil Kumar on 17.3.1996 in Village Kakor, Tehsil Barot, District Bagpat. The differences cropped up between the two families on the question of dowry. So, Dhan Singh (father of Smt. Anju Singh) moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging the insatiable conduct of all members of in-laws’ family of her daughter. It was also stated time and again in different litigations between the parties that Smt. Anju Singh was expelled twice from her in-laws’ house on 30.10.2000 and 6.5.2001. 3. The aforesaid application moved by Dhan Singh was registered as a complaint case, and this Court has been apprised that the same is being proceeded in the trial court. 4. On 21.7.2001, Smt. Anju Singh filed another complaint case no. 1226/2001 against her husband for the offence of Section 406 IPC, and this Court has been apprised that the trial in that case resulted in conviction of her husband Sunil Kumar. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in order to take avenge from Dhan Singh and Smt. Anju Singh, a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved by Bhopal Singh (father-in-law of Smt. Anju Singh), which was registered as Misc. Case No. 13/2006. Several allegations were made against Smt. Anju Singh and her father including that she obtained the permanent resident 3 certificate on the basis of forged ration card, voter list and false affidavit. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee on 25.2.2006, after recording elaborate reasons, rejected this application. The revision filed against this order of rejection was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, who directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter. Thereafter the learned Magistrate registered the said application moved by Bhopal Singh as a complaint case. After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and his witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied and did not find any prima facie evidence to take cognizance in the matter and, therefore, he again dismissed the complaint on 27.1.2007. 6. During the aforesaid period, the suit for divorce, initiated by Smt. Anju Singh, was decreed on 28.2.2005 by mutual consent of the parties. But Smt. Anju Singh felt disgruntled on the issue of permanent alimony awarded to her in the said divorce petition. So, she further agitated the matter before this Court, which, as per the information of learned Counsel for the petitioners, is still pending. 7. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that with a feeling of revenge, Sunil Kumar has moved the aforesaid two applications under Section 340 CrPC, whereupon the learned Family Court Judge has issued notice on 20.4.2007 summoning the petitioners to respond in the matter. 8. In the above factual backdrop of the controversy, Sunil Kumar intends to invoke the powers of the court under Section 340 CrPC for the reason that allegations were made against him and her other family members that they expelled Smt. Anju Singh from her matrimonial house on 30.10.2000 and 6.5.2001, and statements to the same 4 effect were also made by the petitioners before the courts below in various litigations pending between the parties, whereas during this period, as per the report of the Lekhpal, she was found to be residing at her father’s address E- 372/1, Subhash Nagar, Roorkee. So, this way the deposition made by Smt. Anju Singh and her father Dhan Singh before the court, on oath, was false. 9. In view of this Court, the statements made by the petitioners that on the aforesaid two dates, Smt. Anju Singh was ousted from her matrimonial house cannot be questioned on the basis of the report made by the Lekhpal of the area, who reported that Smt. Anju Singh was residing at her father’s aforementioned address for the period of three years, which also included the said two dates. The Lekhpal’s report is only indicative of the fact that she was residing at her father’s house in normal course. It cannot be construed on the basis of the report of the Lekhpal that she was living at her father’s house continuously for three years at a stretch, particularly in the circumstances when the differences were being tried to be sorted out between the two families by way of reconciliation. So, it was the natural conduct of Smt. Anju Singh to go to her husband’s house on the basis of reconciliation and try to settle there. This way, the report given by the Lekhpal, which made the basis of issuance of the permanent resident certificate in favour of Smt. Anju Singh, also cannot be questioned. Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC can be initiated by the Court only when some fabrication, interpolation or manipulation has been made in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. 10. In view of the above, the petitioners Smt. Anju Singh and her father Dhan Singh cannot be left to undergo the mental agony of facing an inquiry in furtherance of the 5 proceeding under Section 340 CrPC, which is likely to be initiated on the basis of the complaint of Sunil Kumar as the same has been filed with the feeling of taking revenge. Hence, these writ petitions have merit and the same are liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, both the aforetitled writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 20.4.2007, passed by the Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No. 44/2007 and 43/2007 as well as the entire proceedings of the said cases are hereby quashed. 12. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 1.12.2011 Prabodh