The absence of prima facie evidence of dowry harassment and the admission by the complainant of lodging the FIR under misunderstanding led to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

N.S. Dhanik, J. - By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 24.01.2017 and summoning order dated 19.05.2017, along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 145 of 2017 (FIR No. 20 of 2016), "State v. Bharat Bhushan Nautiyal" under Section 304-B & 498-A IPC, registered at P.S. Purola, District Uttarkashi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. The applicant has further prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2017.

2. Facts, in brief, are that on 31.08.2016 respondent no. 2 (Gopeshwar Prasad Bijalwan) lodged an F.I.R. against the accused applicant and one another stating therein that on 03/04- 10-2014 the marriage of daughter of the second respondent was solemnized with the applicant (husband) as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Soon after the marriage, the husband and the sister-inlaw of the applicant started harassing and torturing the deceased for the reason that she brought a very small amount of dowry. The deceased used to tell in this regard to her brother-Ashok telephonically and also on WhatsApp, the detail of which are still available with Ashok. It is also stated in the FIR that the husband of the deceased was having illicit relations with her sister-in-law (bhabhi). When the deceased caught them red-handed then in order to get rid of the deceased, they again started harassing and torturing. It is also stated that when the husband of the deceased came to know about the fact that the deceased is pregnant, the applicant started assaulting her and pressurized her for abortion. Thereafter, the applicant started to pick up fight with the deceased and intentionally kicked on the stomach of the deceased due to which the deceased succumbed to the injury and died at Doon Hospital Dehradun on 15.08.2016.

3. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2, investigation was carried out and police submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 304-A IPC and excluded Sections 498-A and 120 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant under Sections 498-A and 304B IPC. Thereafter, against the aforesaid cognizance order dated 19.05.2017, the applicant preferred a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi which was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2020. Hence, the present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime and has been made a scapegoat. It is also submitted that the second respondent had lodged the FIR having some misunderstanding and when the second respondent came to know about the true facts, he himself gave an affidavit before the Court below clearly stating therein that he has lodged the said FIR under some misunderstanding and now he does not want to pursue further criminal litigations against the applicant. It is further submitted that the deceased was already facing complications and even the applicant had provided all adequate medical facilities and treatment to her, as per his capability. It is also submitted that from the date of marriage till the date of the unfortunate death of the deceased, no complaint or FIR has ever been lodged regarding any kind of dowry harassment and as such, it is proved that the deceased was never harassed or tortured. It is also clear from a perusal of the Postmortem report, which clearly reveals that no external injury was found and since the father of the deceased had himself given an affidavit stating therein that the deceased was not subjected to any cruelty or harassment for want of dowry by the applicant, therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not attracted in the present case. Furthermore, the proceedings against the present applicant are nothing but a g