1. Complaint Case No. 6549 of 2011 (Kanwaljeet Kaur Vs. Amit Sood & others) was filed by complainant/ opposite party no.-2 against her husband Amit Sood and his family members for alleged cruelty due to demand of dowry and using physical force against her. In said case CJM, Saharanpur has passed order of cognizance and summoning dated 14.5.2016. Apart from abovenamed Amit Suit his family members namely Rajendra Sood @ Rajinder paul, Mother Neeta Sood @ Neeta Rani and brother Kapil Sood were also summoned for prosecution of offence under section 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The proceedings of said complaint case has been challenged through present application under section 482 Cr.P.C by Rajendra Sood, Neeta Sood and Kapil Sood.
2. Counsel for the applicant contended that there has been general and vague allegations against applicants in complaint case, who reside separately from Amit Sood and complainant/O.P. no.-2, but they were falsely implicated in this matter without any reason. Therefore, proceedings against them should be quashed.
3. Counsel for the O.P. no.-2 contended that applicants are family members of the husband of complainant and it is their legal and moral duty to protect the applicants during altercation and dispute with her husband, but this duty was not discharged by them, therefore they should also be prosecuted.
4. From perusal of the complaint, it is found that much before the institution of complaint case under challenge, O.P. no.-2 Kanwaljeet Kaur (complainant) had started residing with her husband Amit Sood in separate house. The alleged incident of 29.9.2011, for which complaint was filed, had also happened in the house of complainant/ O.P. no.-2 and not in the house of her husband or other in laws (applicants). The alleged specific act of causing injuries and attempt of strangulation and using foul words were allegedly committed by complainant's husband Amit Sood in the house of complainant. The averments in this regard by affidavit on behalf of applicants are not denied and uncontroverted, hence are acceptable.
5. It is apparent that there are no allegations against applicants except casual reference of their names which have been included in the complaint. Mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute especially if it happens soon after the wedding.
6. In light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering uncontroverted affidavit of applicants relating to facts of the matter, it is found that there is no specific allegations against applicant regarding cruelty due to demand of dowry or alleged causing of injury or using foul words or any other overt act. The present applicants reside in separate house, away and unconcerned from house where complainant and her husband resided together at the time of incident. In these circumstances, there is no justification for carrying out proceedings against applicants for alleged cruelty due to demand of dowry, only on the ground that they are family members or near relatives of husband of complainant/O.P. no.-2.
7. In these circumstances, exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court, this application is allowed. The proceedings of complaint Case No. 6549 of 2011, Kanwaljet Kaur Vs. Amit Sood and others, under section 498-A, 323 IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, police station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, against applicants Rajendra Sood, Neeta Sood and Kapil Sood are hereby quashed.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court.
Order Date :- 28.9.2016 SKS