Smt. Chandrawati Sharma and Ors. .… v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Criminal Case No.1547 of 2021 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri Pramod Kumar and Ors., punishable under Section 406 IPC, as well as the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of 2022 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma and Ors., under Section 406 IPC, whereby, the learned Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the applicants and the entire proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal Complaint Case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 and applicant No.4 got married on 19.01.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and on 23.12.2014, she was ousted from her matrimonial house by the applicants on account of bringing less dowry. The entire Streedhan was kept by the applicants for themselves. She had also sent 2 them a legal notice on 22.02.2021, but did not receive any reply from them. Thereafter, a complaint was made by the respondent No.2 on 13.04.2021 against the applicants and the learned Additional CJM, Kashipur, after recording the statements of complainant-respondent No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence under Section 406 IPC against the applicants and summoned them for trial vide order dated

12.10.2021.

3. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 is mother in-law, applicant No.2 is sister in-law (Nanad), applicant No.3 is sister in-law (Jethani) and applicant No.4 is husband, of the respondent No.2. She vehemently argues that the learned CJM has erred in law, as after bare perusal of material on record, no prima-facie case could be established against applicants. She further submits that respondent No.2 was a Government Teacher and after solemnization of marriage with applicant No.4, she started pressurizing him to leave his house and to live separately with her at her place of posting. She also submits that when applicant No.4 refused, respondent No.2 started threatening him with dire consequences by filing false cases against him and his family. She further contends that respondent No.2 had already taken back all her Streedhan with her, when she had left the matrimonial house.

4. Learned senior counsel the applicant contends that respondent No.2 also has a mental condition, for which she is undergoing regular treatment. Respondent No.2 was also suspended from her school by the District Education Officer, on grounds of financial irregularity, not discharging her duties and acts of violence against a student, which indicate that she has temperament issues. She further contends that an FIR No.51 of 2015 dated 3

11.02.2015 was also lodged by the respondent No.2 against the applicant No.4 and his family members, in which, everyone except applicant No.4 was exonerate, which clearly shows that the present application is yet another means of falsely implicating the applicants.

5. She also contends that respondent No.2 chose not to live with her husband i.e. applicant No.4 out of her own volition and applicant No.4 had also filed a petition for divorce in the year 2019, which was granted. She also submits that it is pertinent to note that in the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 in the year 2015, there was no mention of Streedhan being retained by the applicants and all of a sudden after seven years, this allegation has been made in the present complaint.

6. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the applicants that the present summoning order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside, as the complaint is instituted by respondent No.2 after a delay of seven years, which is time barred as per the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the learned Additional CJM, Kashipur only after recording the statement of the complainant-respondent No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance upon the applicants and rightly summoned them.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, relying upon the counter affidavit, submits that respondent No.2 did not take any of her belongings from her matrimonial house. He also submits that respondent No.2 was subjected to immense cruelty and pain at the hands of applicants and she was eventually forced to leave her matrimonial house. He further contends that an FIR was also lodged by the respondent No.2 against the applicants 4 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant No.4.

9. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that a notice was sent to the applicants on

22.02.2021, which is prior to the filing of the complaint under Section 406 IPC, and therefore, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to rum and therefore, this will be a continuing offence and provision of Section 472 Cr.P.C. will attracted in the present case. Therefore, the complaint is not barred by limitation.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that it is evident from the facts of the case that more than seven years have elapsed from the date of alleged offence against the applicants, which is way more than the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court opines that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse process of law against the applicants. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the marriage between respondent No.2 and applicant No.4 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the continuation of criminal proceedings, which would only result in extended litigation. Furthermore, keeping in view the advanced age of other applicants and the fact that respondent No.2 and applicant No.4 are no longer in a matrimonial relationship, the continuation of proceedings against the applicants would only amount to unnecessary harassment.

11. Accordingly, the present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated

12.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in 5 Criminal Case No.1547 of 2021 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri Pramod Kumar and Ors., punishable under Section 406 IPC, as well as the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of 2022 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma and Ors., under Section 406 IPC, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of 2022, shall stand quashed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f02 76c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84 BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.08.2025