Suresh Chandra Lohani vs State of Uttaranchal and Smt. Kanchan

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4672 of 2004, Smt. Kanchan Lohani v. Suresh Chandra Lohani, relating to offence punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant (respondent No. 2) got married to the petitioner Suresh Chandra Lohani in April 1988. After a period of 16 years, she lodged a first information report against her husband relating to offence punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C., which was registered as Crime No. 246 of 2002. After investigation, the police submitted final report in said case. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/complainant filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 4672 of 2004, before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in which the Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant u/s 200, and that of the witness u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 03.09.2004, the criminal complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. It appears that the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2004, before the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Said court vide its order dated 23.10.2004 set aside the order dismissing the criminal complaint, and directed the Magistrate to pass fresh orders, where upon, vide impugned order dated 10.01.2005, the petitioner is summoned in the criminal complaint to face the trial in respect of offences punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the parties is more than 16 years old. From the criminal complaint itself (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition), it is apparent that the petitioner is not doing any job, and neglecting his wife and children. It is pleaded that the same by itself does attract any criminal liability against the petitioner. It is also alleged in the criminal complaint that when the petitioner goes to his parental house his parents do not disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner. Again, that also does not attract any criminal liability. Lastly, it is alleged that the petitioner has sold a flat in Ghaziabad for Rs. 19,00,000/- so that the complainant may not inherit the property. Once again, it does not attract any criminal liability. The complainant may have a right to sue the petitioner for maintenance, or she may sue the petitioner for divorce etc., but the above allegations, even if taken to be true, does not constitute the criminal offence punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C., for which the petitioner has been summoned to face the trial.

For the reasons as discussed above, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 4672 of 2004, Smt. Kanchan Lohani v. Suresh Chandra Lohani, relating to offence punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, are hereby quashed.