The judgment emphasizes the need to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and highlights the requirement of prima facie evidence to establish the applicability of Section 498-A of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J. - The applicants-accused persons invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to quash the Charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 588 of 2013, registered with Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital and cognizance order dated 13.02.2014, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.586 of 2014, "State vs. Harish Pal and others", under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 05.12.2013 at 17.10 hrs, an FIR was registered at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital against the applicants along with the co-accused Harish Pal to the effect that the marriage of the informant Smt. Mamta, the respondent No.3, was solemnized with the co-accused Harish Pal, brother of the applicant No.1 and son of the applicant No.2, on 25.04.2002. They harassed the informant Smt. Mamta, by saying her that her parents had not given anything in dowry. They started taunting and torturing her continuously and demanded five lakhs in dowry. She further stated in the FIR that her husband Harish Pal has got his second marriage with Mamta daughter of Joga Ram when the demand for dowry was not met.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant No.1 Smt. Anandi Pal, sister-in-law of the respondent No.3, was around 48-49 years old at the time the FIR was lodged; she was married in Moradabad; she was posted as a Principal at Government Primary School, Gaula Par, Haldwani, District Nainital; she was temporarily residing in village Daharia, Mitravihar, Haldwani, District Nainital; the applicant No.2, Smt. Rampyari Devi, aged about 78-79 years, was residing with the applicant No.1; the marriage of the respondent No.3 took place with Harish Pal, brother of the applicant No.1, and son of the applicant No.2, in the year, 2002; the period of 11 years has elapsed and there was no complaint from the side of the respondent No.3 against the applicants; the marriage between the respondent No.3 and the co-accused Harish Pal had taken place at temple; there were neither any demand of dowry at the time of the marriage nor there any demand of dowry from the side of the applicants ever has been made; since the applicants were living separately, they had nothing to do with the life of Harish Pal and the respondent No.3; the impugned false FIR has been lodged against the applicants after 11 years of the marriage of the respondent No.3; the Investigating Officer did not conduct fair investigation and filed a false charge-sheet against the applicants.

5. Mr. A.K. Shah, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that though the marriage of the respondent No.3 was solemnized in a temple but the applicant No.1 used to come frequently to the house of the respondent No.3; the applicants demanded dowry and harassed the respondent No.3 in connection with the demand of dowry; these facts are fully corroborated by the statement of the witness Smt. Meera Devi, sister of the respondent No.3, recorded under Section 161 of the Code; the statement of a witness, namely, Smt. Shashi wife of Manoj Sahu, a neighbour of the husband of the respondent No.3, was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, therein, she stated that on 05.12.2013, the respondent No.3 was beaten up by her mother-in-law; the Investigating Officer investigated the matter very fairly and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the applicants and the husband of the respondent No.3.

6. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the respondent/State did not file the copy of the said statement of Smt. Shashi. He argued that there is no prima facie evidence available on the record that the applica