IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 901/2005 Gabbar Singh & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. RP Nautiyal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/IV FTC, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 47/2005 Rajendra Singh Negi v. State of Uttarancha and the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div./JM), Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 331/2005, 339/2005, Rajendra Singh Negi v. Gabbar Singh & Ors. under Section 406 and 506 IPC. In brief, the prosecution case is that the complainant Rajendra Singh filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 406 and 506 IPC with the allegation that at the time of marriage of his daughter with the petitioner no. 3 Puran Singh, he has given articles in dowry as mentioned in the list as stridhan in the presence of the people who attended the said marriage. Later on his daughter was being harassed by the petitioners for the dowry and the petitioners demanded TV, fridge, cooler, motorcycle, etc. The complainant tried to convince the in-laws of his daughter, but his daughter was ousted from the house by the petitioners. Puran Singh also tortured his daughter mentally and physically for dowry and also threatened her for life. On 7.10.2004 when Smt. Krishna Devi, the daughter of the complainant demanded the aforesaid stridhan from the petitioners, they refused to return the said articles and also threatened her that if she would demand it again she would be killed. The complainant has further stated that the said stridhan are in illegal possession of the petitioners and they are not returning the same. Thereafter a report was lodged but no action was taken. An application was also given to SP, Haridwar in this regard, but no action was taken by the police. With these averments, the complainant lodged this complaint. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses Sohan Singh and Jaiveer Singh under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and accordingly rejected the complainant vide order dated 7.1.2005. Against the aforesaid order dated 7.1.2005, the complainant/respondent no. 2 preferred a revision, which was allowed by IV FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2005 and the order of the Magistrate dated 7.1.2005 was set aside and trial court was directed to record the statement of the victim Smt. Krishan and thereafter decide the case on merit. Thereafter the statement of Smt. Krishna was recorded by the trial court wherein she has stated that she was married to Puran Singh on 2.5.2004 as per Hindu rites. Her father has given certain articles like almirah, deewan (bed), beddings, gold ornaments and other household articles in the marriage. Her relatives had also given the gifts in the marriage. After the marriage, she lived in her in-laws house for the one month. After one month of her marriage, her in-laws stated that she should save herself from her husband as he is habitual of taking intoxicated tablets. Her husband was taking these tablets before her also. On 18.6.2004, petitioners Gabbar Singh and Puran Singh demanded colour TV, fridge, cooler and motorcycle form the victim. For that she filed a separate case for demand of dowry against the petitioners. On 21.6.2004 she was ousted by the petitioners from the house 2 and she had not taken any articles and the same are in the house of her in-laws. On 2.10.2004 she demanded her stridhan from the petitioners and Dayal Singh Bisht and Sohan Singh Negi had also gone to demand the said stridhan, but the petitioners refused to return the same and Puran Singh, Gabbar Singh, Sita Devi also threatened to kill her. Thereafter she returned to her house. She again demanded her stridhan in March, 2005 but the petitioners refused to return the articles. Thereafter her father lodged the report in this regard but no action was taken. Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the case was remanded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 23.7.2005 and the trial court was directed to decide the case on merit after recording the statement of the victim Smt. Krishna. Thereafter statement of Smt. Krishan was recorded before the trial court, in which she has made the allegations only against Gabbar Singh, Puran Singh and Sita Devi, but she has not stated anything against Basanti Devi and Deepak, who are the unmarried sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim Smt. Krishna. Perusal of the statement of victim Smt. Krishna reveals that she has made the allegations only against Gabbar Singh, Puran Singh and Sita Devi. She has not made any allegations regarding holding her stridhan against the petitioners Basanti Devi and Deepak. Therefore, the impugned summoning order dated 8.9.2005 in respect of the petitioners Basanti Devi and Deepak is not correct and justified. However, other petitioners, viz., Gabbar Singh, Puran Singh and Sita Devi have rightly been summoned in view of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. For the reasons recorded above, the summoning order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div./JM), Haridwar is set aside only in respect of the petitioners Basanti Devi and Deepak. However, the impugned 3 summoning order dated 8.9.2005 is affirmed in respect of other petitioners, viz., Gabbar Singh, Puran Singh and Sita Devi. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 15.12.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 4