Smt. Beena Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 05 of 2010, State v. Dr. Manmohan Sharma & Anr. u/s 498-A, 323 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Kankhal, District Haridwar pending before the trial court. Facts, in brief, are that marriage of respondent no. 2 Smt. Manisha Sharma was solemnized with petitioner no. 3 Dr. Manmohan Sharma on 21.6.2002 as per Hindu rites and the father of respondent no. 2 had given dowry as per his status which also included gold and silver ornaments and a Santro Car. Soon after the marriage, the petitioners started to harass the respondent no. 2 for dowry. On 30.4.2005, petitioner no. 3 Dr. Manmohan Sharma committed marpit with his wife i.e. respondent no. 2 and ousted her from his house. Thereafter on

1.5.2005, respondent no. 2 complained the matter to National Women Commission, Delhi. Thereafter the petitioners in order to escape the legal proceedings against them compromised the matter with respondent no. 2 and agreed to keep her well in future and accordingly respondent no. 2 moved applications before the SSP, Agra and Rudraprayag requesting not to take further action against the petitioners in this regard. After 2 keeping her well for few days, the petitioners again started to harass respondent no. 2 for dowry. Ultimately, respondent no. 2 went to her maternal house and started living there and she also gave birth to a child in her maternal house on 6.6.2008. Petitioner no. 3 developed also has some illicit relationship with another woman and when respondent no. 2 raised objections against it, petitioner no. 3 had also beaten her on quite a few occasions and respondent no. 2 had also written a letter in this regard to her father on 6.2.2009. Father of respondent no. 2 also registered the aforesaid Santro car in her name. Thereafter on

5.7.2009 at about 11 am, petitioners came at the maternal house of respondent no. 2 where she was living and asked her to get the said car registered in the name of petitioner no. 3 and also demanded rupees four lakhs for opening a nursing home and rupees ten thousand for the car insurance. When respondent no. 2 tried to make them understand, they committed marpit with her. Mother of the respondent no. 2 was also pushed by them on the floor when she tried to save her daughter. Thereafter they left the said place after threatening that if their demands would not be fulfilled, they would kill respondent no. 2 and will solemnize second marriage of petitioner no. 3. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Somdutt Bhardwaj and Satyanaran Sharma, friends of the father of respondent no. 2. Thereafter respondent no. 2 was medically examined at Govt. Hospital, Haridwar and case was lodged against the petitioners with PS Kankhal, Haridwar. After investigation, the I.O. submitted chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which, Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar issued the summoning order dated 4.1.2010 against the petitioners under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier petitioners had also filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 950/2009, which was dismissed as infructuous as all the petitioners have been chargesheeted. 3 State has filed a counter affidavit wherein the averments made in the FIR have been supported. Statements of complainant Smt. Manisha Sharma, her mother Smt. Manju Sharma, father CP Sharma, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and eyewitnesses of the alleged incident Somdatt Bhardwaj and Satya Narayan Sharma recorded under Section 161 CrPC have also been enclosed along with the counter affidavit of the State and all these witnesses have fully corroborated the prosecution version in their respective statements. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; perusal of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other papers available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections is made out. The dispute involves factual questions which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. 4 The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 15.1.2010 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.)

8.7.2010 PRABODH