What happens when husband takes back 498A wife? He gets 304B…Read this Judgement from HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 260/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC)
Prem Singh & Others …….Applicants Versus
State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State.
13th September, 2011
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the prayer has been made to quash the Criminal Case No. 2272/2002, State v. Prem Singh & Others, and the order of cognizance dated 22.10.2002 passed therein by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. The said criminal case is based upon a chargesheet submitted against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 147, 323, 506, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pertaining to Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, it transpires that marriage of Smt. Sunita with Prem Singh was solemnized on 20.11.1997. Soon after the marriage, differences cropped up between the wedded couple on the question of dowry and other issues. After passing of few years in the mental agony, Smt. Sunita lodged an FIR on 11.6.2002 against the applicants for the offences as stated above. After the investigation, the chargesheet, under the aforesaid sections, was filed against the applicants. The learned Magistrate 2
registered the chargesheet and passed the impugned order of cognizance.
3. It is further revealed before this Court that husband Prem Singh filed a divorce petition no. 266/2002, while on the other hand, Smt. Sunita filed the miscellaneous case no. 89/2002 seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, good sense prevailed between the two and with the intervention of some elders, the wedded couple again resumed their matrimonial life. They filed a compounding deed dated 29.3.2003, wherein it was settled that both the parties will live together peacefully keeping behind all the differences and will withdraw all the cases filed against each other by them. The compounding deed was filed in the concerned court on 4.4.2003. On the basis of this deed, the divorce petition no. 266/2002 was dismissed by the learned Judge on 9.11.2003 and the proceedings of Section 125 CrPC were also quashed.
4. Smt. Sunita thus started living in her matrimonial house. But unfortunately, after passing almost a year, she died there. After her death, prosecution under Section 304B IPC was launched against the husband and his parents. That trial in the court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Moradabad ended in acquittal of all the accused. But the charge for the offence of Section 498A IPC could not be compounded since the offence under this section is non-compoundable.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the impugned chargesheet, the Criminal Case No. 2272/2002 and the order of cognizance dated 22.10.2002 passed therein will not serve any purpose and thus meaningless now. The same are liable to be quashed. 3
6. Resultantly, the impugned chargesheet, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2272/2002 and the order of cognizance dated 22.10.2002 passed therein, all are hereby quashed. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)