Smt. Zeenat and Others vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

V.K. Gupta, C.J.—Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, Asstt. Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

As per the FIR in question, the marriage took place on 30th April, 2003 and the daughter of the complainant - Respondent No. 2 Shabeena went to live in the matrimonial house in Ghaziabad. The FIR alleges that because of cruelty etc. relating to dowry harassment etc. Shabeena had to come back to Hardwar. At Hardwar, complaint was filed with the Women Helpline for dowry harassment etc. and the date was fixed before the Women Helpline on 5-8-2008. The FIR further alleges that at Hardwar- the complainant - Respondent No. 2 started receiving threatening calls from the Petitioner No. 4 Asad Husnain, the husband of Shabeena and the father of the Petitioner No. 4, Aizaz Husnain (who has since died). I have carefully perused the FIR in question, as far as the jurisdiction of Hardwar is concerned, the only allegation is about the complainant receiving threatening calls from Asad Husnain - Petitioner No. 4 and his late father. There is no mention at all about the complainant receiving threatening calls from Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 2 or Petitioner No. 3. In the FIR actually, there is no mention at all about any role having played by these three Petitioners. Also as far as committing any offence with respect to or arising out of Sections 498-A or 323 I.P.C., or Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, there is no allegation in the FIR of any of the Petitioners having committed any such offence within the territorial jurisdiction of Hardwar. Because, admittedly, the Petitioners are residents of Ghaziabad and there is no allegation that any one of them came to Haridwar to commit any such offence. On the own showing of the complainant, Shabeena the complainant''s daughter came from matrimonial house at Ghaziabad to the house of the complainant at Hardwar.

For the aforesaid foregoing reasons, as far as Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, no allegations having been made against them and no offence apparently having been shown to have been committed by them, the proceedings against these three Petitioners are hereby quashed. As far as Petitioner No. 4 is concerned, proceedings against him arising out of the FIR in question u/s 506 alone can be held to be maintainable based on the allegation in the FIR. Against the Petitioner No. 4 also, proceedings under Sections 498-A and 323 I.PC. as well as 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.

The petition is disposed of.