Allowed

Smt. Usha Khanduja and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC13 May 2013C482/810/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed chargesheet and proceedings alleging dowry harassment and cruelty under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, based on a compromise between the complainant wife and her husband.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet dated 23.10.2007 and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Smt. Usha Khanduja and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 810 of 2008

¶2

Usha Khanduja and another …………. Applicants

¶3

versus

¶4

State of Uttarakhand and another …………. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Saun, AGA for the respondent State.

¶6

Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)

¶7

The applicants, by means of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the chargesheet dated 23.10.2007 (copy Annexure 5 to the accompanying affidavit) as well as the proceedings of criminal case no. 7620 of 2008, State vs. Vishal Khanduja and others under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun.

¶8

An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 Smt. Neha Khanduja against Vishal Khanduja (husband), Tilak Raj Khanduja (father-in-law) and Smt. Usha Khanduja (mother-in-law) on 22.08.2007 in Reporting Outpost Bindal, Police Station Cantt. Dehradun, District Dehradun in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶9

After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against accused persons in respect of selfsame offences. The cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate

¶10

¶11

on 11.06.2008 and summons were issued to the applicants. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed.

¶12

Respondent no. 2 did not respond despite service of notice upon her through father Harish Lamba on 03.01.2009. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 either.

¶13

In paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit filed by the applicant no. 1 it was averred that co-accused Vishal Khanduja (husband) and respondent no. 2 have already settled their dispute amicably outside the court in terms of compromise. They have no grievances against each other and as such, after the compromise between the parties, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is to be noted here that applicant no. 1 Usha Khanduja is mother-inlaw and applicant no. 2 Tilak Raj Khanduja is father-in-law of respondent no. 2, who has already entered into compromise with her husband Vishal Khanduja (nonapplicant).

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention of this Court towards the statement given by respondent no. 2 to the Investigating Officer of the case which is enclosed as Annexure 2 to the application / petition. The question and answer is in the following form:

¶15

Q. Whether your mother-in-law and father-in-law ever demanded dowry from you?

¶16

A. They did not demand any dowry, but they always used to take side of their son Vishal.

¶17

¶18

Q. Whether your mother-in-law and father-in-law every treated you with cruelty?

¶19

A. They used to ask me to prepare meals whereas a maid servant was already available for this purpose in the house.

¶20

Although none is present on behalf of respondent no. 2 but the submission of learned counsel for the applicants and the averments made in the affidavit of applicant no. 1 Usha Khanduja indicate that the respondent no. 2 has settled the dispute with her husband amicably. The statement given by respondent no. 2 to the Investigating Officer further indicates that she had no grievance against her father-in-law and mother-in-law (applicants).

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants also drew attention of this Court towards the terms of settlement (copy Annexure 6) entered into between respondent no. 2 and her husband before the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. In paragraph no. 3A of the terms of settlement, it was decided between the parties that the pending proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be got quashed.

¶22

Although proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but this is definitely one such case in which such jurisdiction should be exercised and the relief as sought for by the applicants in the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be

¶23

¶24

allowed in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.

¶25

Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is thus allowed. Chargesheet dated 23.10.2007 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no. 7620 of 2008, State vs Vishal Khanduja and others under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun are hereby quashed.

¶26

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

¶27

Dt. May 13, 2013. Negi

Smt. Usha Khanduja and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Khanduja and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Datt Paneru Vs State and Ors.

Pooran Chand Vs Om Prakash Sharma

Nawal Kishor Joshi Vs State andOTHERS

Pratap Singh Vs Nagar Palika Parishad and Another

Uttarakhand Pariwahan Nigam Vs Smt Subodha Devi Topal and Others

Smt. Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Nagar Palika Haldwani Cum Kathgodam