IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1125 of 2012
(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)
Sharda Parmar ….. Applicant
State of Uttarakhand and Another ….Respondents
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
The applicant has filed the present
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C’)
for setting aside the summoning order dated
06.04.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.24 of 2012
(Mahendra Kumar Chauhan vs Smt. Sharda Parmar)
along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
2A. Factual Matrix of the case is that respondent
no.2 instituted a complaint case before the J.M.
Kashipur alleging therein that his daughter was
married with Nitin Parmar (son of present applicant) on
01.11.2006. It is alleged that, in the marriage,
sufficient dowry items for domestic use with gold
articles along with Rs.3.00 lakh in cash were given.
Out of that wedlock, a male child was born on
6.1.2009. It is also alleged that Nitin Parmar along with
his girlfriend committed the murder of Alpana
Chauhan (daughter of respondent no.2) on 10.3.2010,
and both the accused are languishing in jail. It is
further alleged that after the death of daughter of
respondent no.2, all the Stridhan given by her parents
was taken away by Nitin Parmar from Haldwani to
Agra. However, in spite of repeated requests, the
applicant did not return the above Stridhan.
3. After registration of complaint, learned
Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant
Mahendra Chauhan under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The
statements of witnesses Pankaj Sharma (CW1) and
Sunil Gupta (CW2) were also recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. After perusal of the evidence, learned
Magistrate summoned the applicant to face trial under
Section 406 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the
present application has been filed seeking the aforesaid
4. During the course of arguments, it is
informed by learned Counsel for the parties that the
criminal case regarding the murder of daughter of
respondent no.2 resulted in the conviction of Nitin
Parmar and his girlfriend, which attained finality up to
the Hon’ble Apex Court.
5. Now, as far as summoning of the applicant
is concerned, the complainant in his statement u/s
200 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that sufficient
dowry was given at the time of marriage of his
daughter. He further deposed that Nitin Parmar along
with his girlfriend committed the murder of his
daughter. After his daughter’s death, Nitin Parmar
took away all the Stridhan from Haldwani to Agra. The
same statements were given by CW1 Pankaj Sharma
and CW2 Sunil Gupta.
6. On a perusal of the statements of the
witnesses, I am of the view that a prima facie case is
made out against the present applicant under Section
406 IPC. The Court also finds that no irregularity or
irregularity was committed by the Court below while
summoning the applicant to face trial under Section
7. In view of the foregoing facts of the case, the
present petition is devoid of any merit and it is,
accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated
15.10.2012 is vacated.
8. As the complaint case is pending since 2011,
the Trial Court is directed to decide the complaint case
at the earliest possible, preferably within six months,
from the date of production of a certified copy of this
9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
Court below for forthwith compliance.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)