High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Charan & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 5049 of 2007  RD-AH 5237 (23 March 2007)
1.Opp. Party No. 2, complainant who married applicant No. 9, Vimal Kumar, 15 years ago, filed a complaint against her husband and eight of his relatives in the Court of C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai on the allegations of committing cruelty and harassment to her for non fulfilment of the demand of dowry. The Magistrate has ordered issuance of process against all these applicants under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.
2.That is what bring the applicants to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3.I have heard Sri Manish, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta for the applicants and Sri R.S. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
4.The applicants say that complainant was married 15 years back and she along with her daughter, aged about 4 years was living along with her husband, applicant No. 9, Vimal Kumar in New Delhi, wherefrom, she with her daughter disappeared on 23.06.2005, after carrying along with her some handsome amount and ornaments and came to her brother's. A written report to this effect was given by the applicant, Vimal Kumar at Police Chauki Madangir, New Delhi on 23.06.2005, copy of which is on the file.
5.It is after two months of coming to her brother, she filed this complaint to usurp the cash amount of Rs.2,05,000/-, which she had brought from Delhi on false grounds, in which, she also implicated all the relatives of the husband.
6.The current practise now a days is to implicate a large number of the relatives of the husband with a view to exert pressure. This tendency has also been noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 1973 and the Supreme Court has itself suggested proper scrutiny about the involvement of the family members of the husband.
7.Courts must, therefore, exercise proper care and must be circumspect in dealing with the cases where a number of persons besides the husband have been arraigned as accused unless there is specific prima-facie evidence with regard to the involvement of particular accused, he should not be allowed to face trial and his name should be deleted, at the very outset.
8.In this case, it has to be noticed that more than 15 years elapsed when the marriage took place. There is allegation of the husband against his complainant wife of leaving his house of her own will stealthily along with her daughter and also carrying away cash amount of Rs.2,05,000/-, and some ornaments in connection of which, he had also given a report at the Police Station. All these circumstances are really suggest that the Court must take them into account, while dealing with the present controversy.
9.The complainant has implicated her husband's parents, husband's, three brothers and their wives, which are the remaining applicants in this case. That is indicative of the whole sale inclusion of all the family members irrespective of their actual involvement.
10.In the circumstances, the continuance of all the other members of the family except the husband, would be a clear abuse of the process of law and their names should, therefore, be deleted from the array of the accused only the husband's name (applicant No. 9, Vimal Kumar) will survive.
11.Ordered accordingly. Petition partly allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.