R.P. Sharma and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged the cognizance order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No. 53/2008, Vidhi Bharadwaj v. Neeraj Bharadwaj and Ors., whereby the applicants and another co-accused Neeraj Bhardwaj (son of the applicants, who is not applicant in this case) have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable u/s 406 Indian Penal Code.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the marriage of Smt. Vidhi Bharadwaj (Respondent No. 2) was solemnized with Neeraj Bharadwaj @ Ram on 10.2.2007. Just after three and half months of the marriage, differences cropped up between the parties to the matrimony which led to the desertion of Smt. Vidhi Bharadwaj by her husband Neeraj Bhardwaj and her in-laws. It is further alleged in the complaint dated 8.1.2008 filed by Smt. Vidhi Bharadwaj that her husband Neeraj Bhardwaj, father-in-law R.P. Sharma and mother-in-law Smt. Manju Sharma after beating her severely left her at her parent''s house on 27.5.2007 only in her clothes which she wore at that time, and without returning her stridhan. Since then she is living in her parent''s house. On 19.8.2007, the accused persons came to Haridwar and they again raised the demand of dowry. They also had beaten her there. So, the report was lodged as Case Crime No. 416/2007 u/s 498A Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Besides this, she also initiated the legal proceedings claiming maintenance for herself from her husband.

After lodging the aforesaid complaint, the Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant Smt. Vidhi Bharadwaj u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and statements of witnesses, namely, Manu Kaushik (brother of the complainant) and Smt. Suman Sharma u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the learned Magistrate passed the impugned cognizance order against the applicants and Neeraj Bharadwaj (husband of the complainant).

The aforesaid cognizance order was challenged before the Sessions Judge by filing the Criminal Revision 201/2008, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Roopalal Jindal and Ors., the only remedy available with the accused persons against the cognizance order is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. After dismissal of the said criminal revision for want of jurisdiction, the applicants have filed this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the said order of cognizance as stated above.

It has been contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the applicants that Smt. Vidhi Bharadwaj has falsely implicated her in-laws just to harass them. The list of articles, which have been enumerated as the items of gifts given during the course of engagement and marriage, were given not only to the husband Neeraj Bharadwaj but also to the members of the marriage party. All items cannot be said to be part of the stridhan because stridhan is always offered to the bride and not to the groom or his parents or to the members of the marriage party. So on that score, in the name of stridhan, the parents of the groom cannot be implicated as accused in the criminal proceedings launched u/s 406 Indian Penal Code.

Opposing the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the items of stridhan are still in possession of the parents of Neeraj Bharadwaj. Hence, they have rightly been implicated as accused in the complaint and the trial court has correctly taken the cognizance of the offence against them u/s 406 Indian Penal Code.

This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the reason that within the forecorners of the house, the items of stridhan offered to the bride either during engagement or at the time of marriage will be deemed to have been given in possession of the husband notwithstanding the fact that these items might have been kept preserved in the box in possession of the mother of the groom, because the groom (Neeraj Bharadwaj) cannot be supposed to keep those things always sticking to his body or in his pocket. But legally all those items shall be deemed to be in the possession of Neeraj Bharadwaj, and not in the possession of his parents.

So, in view of the above discussion, this Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel of the applicant. Thus the impugned proceedings against the applicants (who are the parents of the groom Neeraj Bharadwaj) will not serve any purpose and the same shall amount to be the abuse of process of court and, therefore, the trial against them cannot be allowed to continue.

For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The cognizance order dated 11.3.2008, passed by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No. 53/2008, is hereby quashed in respect of the applicants R.P. Sharma and Smt. Manju Sharma only. However, trial against Neeraj Bharadwaj shall proceed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.