IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.112 of 2009 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) 1. Saleem Ahmad 2. Shamim Ahmad 3. Smt. Hazra Begam ………. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Dated: November 21, 2011 Sri P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners Sri M.A .Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Pramod Tewari, Adv. i/b Sri Rajendra Singh, Adv. for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. By way of this petition, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the order of cognizance dated 5.12.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar in criminal complaint case no.1985/2008, titled as Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Salim Ahmad and others. In the said case, learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence of Section 406 IPC against the applicants, namely, Salim Ahmad, Shamim Ahmad and Smt. Hazara Begum. First applicant is the husband of Parveen Jahan while applicants no.2 and 3 are the parents of Salim Ahmad. In brief, the facts are that Parveen Jahan, daughter of complainant Shafiq Ahmad, espoused with Salim Ahmad as per Muslim rituals on dated 22.9.2003 but within five years of her wedding, she died. Shafiq Ahmad lodged an FIR in the police station Naugaona Sadat District J.P. Nagar bearing crime no.639 of 2008 for the offence of Sections 498-A/304-B IPC against all the three applicants and two other members of the groom’s family. The chargesheet was submitted in that matter which was tried as Sessions Trial No.558 of 2008 in the 2 court of Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar. The said trial ended in acquittal on 26.5.2010 because all the witnesses, including the father of bride, became hostile and did not support the prosecution version. In the said sessions trial, the statement of Shafiq Ahmad was recorded on 3.3.2010, while prior to said deposition, he had filed a criminal complaint no.1985 of 2008 on 23.10.2008 for the offence of Section 406 IPC, claiming return of all the household articles given by him in the wedding, which were of daily use. Complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on 5.12.2008, whereagainst this petition was filed. Having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, the Court is of the view that the complaint filed by Shafiq Ahmad, father of the bride, is wholly devoid of merit and quite unsubstantial for the reasons stated below: - 1. All the household articles of daily use, the list whereof has been annexed with the complaint, were given as gift items to Smt. Parveen Jahan in her marriage. Even if few of them might be in the nature of Stridhan, then too, after the death of Parveen Jahan, her father is not entitled to claim the return of the same, making the allegations of Section 406 IPC against the groom and his family members. 2. The Sessions Trial no.558 of 2008, which was founded on the basis of report lodged by Shafiq Ahmad himself, has ended in acquittal because of the fact that the statements of all the witnesses (including that of Shafiq Ahmad) did not support the prosecution version. Rather, Shafiq Ahmad himself has deposed in the said case that on 3.3.2010, his daughter Parveen 3 Jahan has committed suicide by strangulating herself because she was fed up with her ailment. This statement has also been supported by Asif, son of complainant, Shafiq Ahmad. So, the said trial was concluded by the Sessions Judge by passing the order of acquittal against all of the accused persons. 3. Even if some of the household articles, by any stretch of imagination, were returnable, then the same have been returned to the complainant along with Rs.1.00 lacs in cash, as is divulged by the mutual compromise, drafted between the parties on 26.7.2010. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 5.12.2008 and the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no.1985 of 2008, Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Salim Ahmad and others, pending in the court of Addl. CJM, Kashipur, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) November 21, 2011 Rajeev Dang