Point of law : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi whereby rejecting the discharge application and the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4191 of 2007 (Govind Singh vs. Bahadur Singh Rautela and others) u/s 498-A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Lanka, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi.

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are that the opposite party No.2 lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 12.10.2007 alleging therein that the applicant No.1 Bahadur Singh Rautela is the husband of his daughter Sunita, while the applicants No. 2 & 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively. The marriage of the daughter of the O.P. No.2 took place on 22.4.2004. At the time of marriage, the daughter Sunita was employed in Kota (Rajasthan). In the marriage of his daughter, the O.P. No.2 gave articles to the applicants much more than his means and the list of the articles are attached to the complaint. Soon after marriage the applicants began to demand more and insisted for a car, washing machine and entire salary of the daughter. The applicants harassed the daughter both mentally and physically for bringing insufficient dowry. The applicant No.1 also served a legal notice. The O.P. No.2, his wife and daughter were summoned by the applicants at Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi, BHU on 8.9.2007 at 10:00 AM on which date they threatened the O.P. No.2, his wife and daughter that the applicant No.1 is going to enter into another marriage as they have failed to give adequate dowry. The applicants also abused and extended life threatening threats. It is also alleged in the complaint that the O.P. No.2 sent a detailed representation at 26.9.2007 to the S.S.P., Varanasi apprising him of the entire conduct of the applicants and when nothing was done, instituted the complaint giving rise to the present proceedings.

3. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the counsel for the applicants that the allegations made in the complaint giving rise to the present proceedings are completely false and have been made against the applicants with a view to harass them. The correct facts are that the marriage of the applicant No.1 with the daughter of the O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 22.4.2004 at Mumbai, Maharashtra. The marriage was a love marriage and was performed with the consent of the parents of both the sides. There is no issue out of the wedlock. Both the applicant No.1 and the daughter of the O.P. No.2 were serving in the same undertaking namely the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. while the applicant No.1 was working at Tarapur Atomic Power Station, Maharashtra and the daughter of the O.P. No.2 was working at Kota (Rajasthan). It had been agreed that the daughter would get her transfer from Kota to Tarapur, which was not done and in fact the daughter of the O.P. No.2 expressed her reluctance to leave Kota and come to Tarapur and cohabit with the applicant No.1. The daughter was continuously torturing, harassing and insulting the applicant No.1 which resulted in tremendous mental tension and he was compelled to institute proceedings for annulment of the marriage u/s 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The applicant No.1 accordingly instituted the divorce petition before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Palghar which was registered as M.P. No. 86 of 2006 on 31.10.2006. The case proceeded ex-parte after recording the factum of service upon the daughter and the marriage dated 22.4.2004 stood dissolved by decree of divorce as per provisions of Sections 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the order dated 29.9.2007 from the date of order. The order dated 29.9.2007 has been filed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. It is also contended on behalf of the applica