Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1391 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- J.N. Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
A complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 Smt. Raj Rani against the
petitioners on 7.9.2006 before the court of learned 1st Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Raebareli. From perusal of the said complaint, it is evident that
opposite party no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 Rajesh Kumar Pandey alias
Pappu. They were married to each other on 5.6.1995. Two issues were born to
the couple out of this wedlock. The age of the elder child on the date of
complaint was about 9 years whereas that of the younger one was about 6
years. The petitioner no. 1 is husband, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law,
petitioner no. 3 is mother-in-law, petitioner no. 4 is brother-in-law (Jeth),
petitioner no. 5 is sister-in-law (Jethani), petitioner no. 6 is brother-in-law
(Dewar) and petitioner no. 7 is sister-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party no. 2.
It has been alleged in the complaint that immediately after the Vidai, opposite
party no. 2 was constantly subjected to torture, mental as well as physical, for
dowry. She tolerated all that and remained with the petitioners in her nuptial
home. Parents of opposite party no. 2 had tried to intervene in the matter and
told the petitioners that their financial condition was not good and they were
not in a position to meet the demand of dowry. It has further been alleged in
the complaint that on some day in the year 2003, all the petitioners assaulted
opposite party no. 2 and turned her out and therefore she came back to her
father’s home. The parents of opposite party no. 2 again went to the
petitioners with the request that opposite party no. 2 should be allowed to
come back but in vain. On 31.5.2006 at about 2.00 P.M. opposite party no. 2
alongwith her father and a few other persons of her village went to the
residence of the petitioners and again tried to persuade them with the request
that opposite party no. 2 be permitted to come back to her nuptial home. This
request irritated all the petitioners and they started abusing the opposite party
no. 2, her father and the persons who had gone there with them. Thereafter
they came back to their village. Opposite party no. 2 had tried to lodge a
report with the police in the matter but no report was lodged and even the
Police Chief of the district did not pay any heed to her complaint, therefore,
she moved a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned
Magistrate. The complaint is under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
Learned Magistrate examined opposite party no. 2/ complainant under Section
200 Cr.P.C. He also examined two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After
hearing, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there was substance in
the matter and, therefore, vide his order dated 13.9.2007 summoned all the
petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved
by this order, the present petition has been moved.
The case was listed for hearing on 18.1.2010. On that date learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned A.G.A. were present but none was present for
opposite party no. 2 despite the fact that she was served personally with the
notice issued by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.
It has been argued from the side of the petitioners that opposite party no. 2 is
an ambitious lady and she does not like to live in a joint family. She wants
that her husband i.e. petitioner no. 1 should live separately alongwith her and
their children in a separate house. The parents and other relatives of opposite
party no. 2 were also persuading her and pressurizing the petitioner no. 1 to
live separately but the family circumstances of petitioner no. 1 did not permit
it and therefore he refused to live separately from his parents and other family
members. Out of sheer frustration opposite party no. 2 left the house of
petitioners alongwith her two children with her clothes, ornaments etc.
Petitioner no. 1 has been making sincere efforts since last many years that the
opposite party no. 2 should return to her nuptial home but she is not ready for
the same. It has further been submitted from the side of the petitioners that to
pressurize them, a false complaint has been filed and the learned Magistrate
issued processes without considering all the aspects of the case in a prototype
and routine manner. In these circumstances, it has been submitted that petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and
set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed this petition saying that the order impugned is
legal and no interference by this Court is required in the matter.
I have carefully examined the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the
records. Learned Magistrate has not examined this aspect of the case as to
why the opposite party no. 2 did not make a complaint since 2003. It is also
not clear from the order impugned whether it relates to the incident of
31.5.2006 or to the set of incidents which had taken place before 2003. It
appears a bit unusual that demand for dowry by the petitioners was made
constantly for a period of some 8 years even after the birth of two children
and no report in this regard was made to the police, or any administrative
officer by opposite party no. 2 or her parents. From perusal of the complaint it
is evident that no date has been mentioned in it on which the opposite party
no. 2 was turned out of her nuptial home in the year 2003.
It appears that the learned Magistrate has not made proper inquiry in the
matter and has not tried to find out the reason for delay in filing the complaint
case nor tried to find out the reason as to under what circumstances, the lady
did not make even a single complaint during the last 8 years. From the order
impugned it is evident that learned Magistrate has passed the order in the most
cursory manner which reflects the fact that he did not apply his mind while
passing the impugned order. He should have examined the circumstances
under which, the lady waited for some 8 years before filing the complaint.
None was present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 on the date when the
petition was heard to answer the queries of the court.
Considering all the aspects of the case, I am of the view that petition has got
force and it should be allowed.
Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.9.2007
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.
22, Raebareli in Complaint Case No. 547 of 2008, Smt. Raj Rani Versus
Rajesh Kumar Pandey alias Pappu and others is quashed and set aside.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
S.B.