AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
By means of present C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 01.06.2022; summoning/cognizance order dated 29.07.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5439 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
Facts in brief are that respondent no.2 lodged the first information report on 30.08.2021 alleging therein that the marriage of respondent no.2 got solemnized with applicant no.1 on 04.05.2018 as per Muslim rites and rituals. The parents of respondent no.2 gifted the ornaments and other articles as per their status and after some time of marriage, the applicants and other accused have demanded money from respondent no.2 and her family members; and also threatened her for demand of dowry. Thereafter, when the respondent no.2 became pregnant, during pregnancy, her husband and in-laws did not get the respondent no.2 examined by any doctor and on 07.03.2020, she gave birth to a daughter in her in-laws house. After the birth of a daughter, applicant no.1 started beating her and even tried to strangle her with her dupatta. It is further stated in the FIR that respondent no.2’s mother-in-law did not even give her proper food. It is also stated in the FIR that applicants continuously assaulted respondent no.2 for demand of dowry and also tried to hang her from the fan. With the aforesaid averments, the first information report was lodged.
After lodging of the first information report, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet on 01.06.2022. Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said charge-sheet vide its order dated 29.07.2022 and issued summons to the applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that while taking cognizance, learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and passed the impugned summoning order. He further submits that respondent no.2 left her matrimonial house with her own will on 01.06.2020 and on 16.06.2020, applicant no.1 and his mother went Dehradun in the house of respondent no.2, but she and her family members refused to send back respondent no.2. He also submits that applicants did not demand money or other things from the family members of respondent no.2.
Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the applicant has raised the serious disputed question of facts before this Court and the same can only be examined during course of trial, thus the present C482 application is liable to be dismissed
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable at this stage as the same would require evidence to substantiate the said argument. This Court while sitting in the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not enjoined to sift the evidence between the parties and the same can be done only by the trial court. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere in the present C482 application and the same is dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.