On account of torture, she came to her parents house with her child on 1st March, 2009 she gave a companyplaint on 27th April, 2010 leading to registration of the FIR on 4th May, 2010.
She also filed companyplaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the companyplainant is distant.
Her brothers who lived abroad gave lot of dowry and cash in the marriage but her family companyld number fulfil more demands raised by the elder brother of her husbands father, who was the head of the joint family on account of which family members of her husband were number satisfied and tortured her.
Their implication was thus, clear abuse of the process of the Court.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Aggrieved by the said summons, the appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 OF THE Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
The case of the companyplainant in the FIR registered on 4th May, 2010 in the Bhelupur Police Station at Varanasi is that her marriage was solemnised on 30th April, 2005.
P.C. with the plea that the summoning was number justified as neither they were named in the FIR got registered by the companyplainant number any individual role was attributed to them in the criminal companyplaint.
In the said companyplaint, the appellants were summoned vide Order dated 30th November, 2010.
The High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the statement of the companyplainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.
Thus, requiring the appellants to face criminal proceedings was numberhing but abuse of the Courts process.
In such remote relationship, the appellants will have numberinterest in raising any demand for dowry or causing any harassment to the companyplainant.
P.C. disclosed the companymission of offence and thus there was numberillegality in the order of summoning.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 2nd May, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad declining to quash the proceedings against the appellants under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In the FIR, initially filed, there was numberallegation against the appellants but in the subsequent companyplaint, the appellants were also named as accused without any specific allegation against them.
Complaint was filed in the year 2010 after filing of divorce petition by the husband of the companyplainant on 24th April, 2010.
Their relationship with the husband of the companyplainant was remote as grand father of the appellant No.1 was brother of grand father of the husband of the companyplainant.
