Chaman Lal Chadha v. The State of Uttaranchal(Uttarakhand)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PRAFULLA C PANT
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 498A, 506
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Richa Chadha W/o Shri Gautam Chadha D/o Shri Vinod Johar, R/o 104/24, Rishikesh Road, P.S.Rishikesh, Dist- Uttaranchal(Uttarakhand) ………….Opposite parties Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent no.1 Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble…
Judgment
Richa Chadha W/o Shri Gautam Chadha D/o Shri Vinod Johar, R/o 104/24, Rishikesh Road, P.S.Rishikesh, Dist- Uttaranchal(Uttarakhand) ………….Opposite parties Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent no.1 Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of 2 Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, State vs. Gautam Chadha and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, filed on behalf of the parties. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.3 Gautam Chadha got married to respondent no.2 Richa Chadha on 13.12.1999 at Delhi.
Two children were born out of the wedlock. A First Information Report was got lodged by the respondent no.2 Richa Chadha against the petitioners which was registered as crime no. 8 of 2004, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 506 I.P.C and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In said First Information Report it is alleged that the 3 respondent no.2 was subjected to harassment for non fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakh made by her husband father-in-law and mother- in-law. After investigation it appears that the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet (copy of Annexure-1) for trial of the petitioners Gautam Chadha, Chaman Lal and Shanti Chadha , in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 506 I.P.C. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this court to ' Explanation ' given in section 498A I.P.C and submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out, in the present case.
(5) Having gone through the provision contains in section 498A, this court is of the view that the present case is not covered by section (a) contained in ' Explanation' to section 498AI.P.C., but it can not be said the ingredients of offence under clause (b) of said ' Explanation ' are not made out from the allegation made in the First Information Report. It is possible that the petitioners might be innocent but it is for the trial to see as to whether they are innocent, or not. It is admitted to learned counsel for the parties that 4 during the pendency of this petition the marriage between the petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 has been dissolved. (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court is of the view, that in the facts and circumstance of the case this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. (7) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Interim order dated
03.12.2004, passed by this court stands vacated. The trial court may proceed further with the trial. (Stay Vacation Application No. 548 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.12.8.2010 N.P
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.