Smt. Seema Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Seema Sharma v. Arvind Sharma & Ors. whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint against the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 for the offence punishable under Section 147, 506(2) IPC. However, other co-accused Arvind Sharma, Omprakash Sharma and Smt. Indu sharma were summoned in connection with the offence punishable under Section 323, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the aforesaid cognizance order dated 17.9.2005, the complainant Seema Sharma has preferred the present revision.

#2. It is pertinent to mention here that against the aforesaid cognizance order, Indu Sharma had filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 948/2005 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 29.6.2010 and proceedings in respect of Indu Sharma in the aforesaid complaint case were quashed. 2

#3. In brief, the case of the revisionist is that she had filed a complaint against the respondents no. 2 to 4, viz., Vipin Kumar Sharma, Smt. Neelam Sharma and Dinesh Chand Sharma as well as against her husband Arvind Sharma, Omprakash Sharma and Indu Sharma before the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun under Section 147, 323, 498A, 506(2) IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In support of her case, Smt. Seema Sharma was examined under Section 200 CrPC wherein she has stated that on 28.6.2005 at about 6 pm, when she was in the house of her father, six people, viz., Arvind, Dinesh, Neelam, Vipin, Indu Sharma and Prem Chand came there and asked her to bring rupees two lakhs from her father. She replied that she could give only rupees one or two thousand but cannot ask such a big amount from her father. On this, all of them beaten her. On hearing her noise, her parents, brother Sushil and Ram Sumer came at the place of occurrence and saved her. Thereafter she came in the Kotwali along with her parents to lodge the FIR, but her report was not lodged in the police station. On the next day, she was medically examined at the Doon Hospital. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant Seema Sharma under Section 200 CrPC and other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and thereafter passed the impugned cognizance order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the complainant/revisionist has preferred the present revision.

#4. Two witnesses PW1 Ram Sumer Singh and PW2 VN Sharma have been examined under Section 202 CrPC. PW1 Ram Sumer Singh has stated that he came to know from the complainant that her in-laws were demanding rupees two lakhs in dowry and they were harassing her for this. Among the in-laws, the name of Arvind Sharma, Omprakash Sharma, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Neelam Sharma and Indu Sharma were told by the complainant to this witness. This 3 witness has further stated that on 27.6.2005 at about 6-

6.30 pm, Arvind Sharma along with 5-6 people had come at the house of the father of complainant. They went inside the house and started to talk with the complainant separately. After sometime, he heard the noise of the complainant and then he along with the parents of the complainant and many other people went inside at the place of occurrence where he heard that they were demanding rupees two lakhs and were asking her to withdraw the case from the Family Court. After intervention by this witness and other people, the accused have gone from there.

#5. PW2 VN Sharma is the father of complainant/revisionist who has stated that on 27.6.2005 at about 6.30 pm, six people came at his house and asked that they wanted to talk separately with Seema Sharma. After sometime on hearing the noise, he along with his wife, son and PW1 Ram Sumer Singh went inside where he saw that his daughter Seema Sharma was being beaten by these people. They wanted to take her signatures on some blank papers and were also asking to withdraw the case. They also demanded rupees two lakhs in dowry. Her daughter had received injuries in the said incident. He went to the police station to loge the FIR, but his report was not lodged.

#6. The complainant/revisionist has also filed a medical certificate dated 10.12.2003 in support of her complaint prepared by the Emergency Medical Officer, Doon Hospital, Dehradun on 10.12.2003 at 12.15 pm.

#7. It reveals the statement complainant/revisionist recorded under Section 200 CrPC that the alleged incident happened on 28.6.2005 at about 6 pm in the house of her parents. However, other two witnesses examined under Section 202 CrPC has stated that 4 the said incident happened on 27.6.2005 at about 6.30 pm. Further, PW1 Ram Sumer Singh has only stated that Arvind Sharma, husband of the complainant came along with 5-6 other persons on the alleged date of incident. But this witness has not disclosed the name of any other person who had come there on the alleged date of incident. Even PW2 VN Sharma, father of the complainant has not made any specific allegation against the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4. He has only stated that on 27.6.2005 at about 6.30 pm, six people came at his house and committed marpit with his daughter.

#8. Thus, the witnesses examined under Section 202 CrPC have not stated anything specific that respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 came in the maternal house of the complainant and committed marpit with her on 27.6.2005. Moreover, the complainant/revisionist has stated the alleged date of incident to be 28.6.2005, whereas the witnesses examined in support of her complaint who were said to be the eyewitnesses have stated the alleged date of incident as

27.6.2005. Thus, statement complainant/revisionist recorded under Section 200 CrPC is not corroborated by the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 CrPC regarding the allegation that respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 committed marpit with her in her maternal house. Furthermore, the complainant has stated that she was medically examined on the next date of the incident i.e. on 29.6.2005, but as stated above, a very old medical certificate dated 10.12.2003 was produced by her along with her complaint, but no incident of 10.12.2003 has been alleged by her in her statement. It goes to indicate that the complainant received no injury on the date of incident as has been alleged by her. 5

#9. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, allegations made against the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 are not corroborated from the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC as well as from the statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 202 CrPC before the trial court. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned cognizance order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, which is correct and justified in respect of the aforesaid respondents no. 2, 3 and 4, viz., Vipin Kumar Sharma, Smt. Neelam Sharma and Dinesh Chand Sharma and to this extent, it requires no interference by this Court.

#10. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Cognizance order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 894/2005, Smt. Seema Sharma v. Arvind Sharma & Ors. is hereby affirmed only to the extent indicated above. PRABODH (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.7.2010