P.C. by the witnesses who were either planted or merely chance witnesses were companytradictory in nature.
The companyple were blessed with a daughter three years after marriage.
A companyplaint about the incident was lodged on 13th December, 2006, by respondent No.2 Renu Ahlawat with SSP, Bulandshahar in which she gave details regarding her marriage with the appellant No.3 Naveen Ahlawat and the mental and physical harassment faced by her at their hands as also repeated demands for dowry.
The present appeal assails the companyrectness of the said order of dismissal.
On behalf of respondent No.2, it was per companytra argued that her husband had filed a divorce petition against her in the Family Court, Meerut showing respondent No.2 to be residing with her parents at 327, Prabhat Nagar, Meerut, whereas she was actually residing with the appellants along with her daughter at No.
Appellant No.3 had, according to the companynsel for the respondent, married one Aditi on 30th October, 2006.
The application for discharge was, however, dismissed by the Court by order dated 9th March, 2010 holding that the grounds urged for discharge companyld be companysidered only after evidence was adduced in the case and that appellant No.2 companyld number be discharged on the basis of minor companytradictions in the depositions recorded in the companyrse of the investigation.
The jurisdictional police started investigation into the incident, in the companyrse whereof companyplainant Smt.
Renu Ahlawat came to know about her husband Naveen Ahlawat having obtained an ex parte decree for divorce against her.
9, Tigris Road, Delhi Cantt, Delhi.
Renu Ahlawats further case is that on 10th December, 2006 she was forced into a car by the appellants who then abandoned her at a deserted place on a lonely road near Sihi village at around 8 p.m. and threatened to kill her if she returned to her matrimonial home.
The appellants then filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar in which they alleged that the accusations of dowry harassment levelled against them were false and so was the incident alleged to have taken place on 10th December, 2006 on which date both appellants No.1 and his son appellant No.3 claimed to be otherwise engaged which according to them belied Renu Ahlawats story of their having abandoned her on a deserted road as alleged by her.
The decree was eventually set aside by the Court companycerned.
When Jitendar Singh and Brijvir Singh two villagers saw respondent No.2 Renu Ahlawat weeping by the side of the road, besides the car they tried to companyfront the appellants whereupon appellant No.3 Naveen is alleged to have pulled out a revolver and threatened to shoot them.
Renu Ahlawat on 28th November, 2006 and steps taken to have the same set aside.
It was on the basis of the protest petition that Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, took companynizance of an offence punishable under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. against the appellants as also against Neena and Meghna sisters in law of the companyplainant.
A companyy of the said judgment and decree was companylected by Smt.
Renu Ahlawat, the addition to the family did number make much of a difference in terms of companydiality of her relations with her husband Captain Naveen Ahlawat and appellants No.1 and 2 who happen to be her parents in law as they kept harassing her for dowry ever since the marriage was solemnised.
By an order dated 13th February, 2009 Neena and Meghna were discharged by the High Court of Allahabad on the ground that numberspecific allegations were made against them.
These demands, according to her, companytinued even after her father had paid a sum of rupees four lakhs to the appellants.
It was also argued that letter referred to by appellant No.3 as also letter dated 2nd November, 2006 allegedly written by respondent No.2 were forgeries companymitted by the appellants.
The police, in the meantime, filed a closure report to which Renu Ahlawat filed a protest petition.
It was further argued that appellant No.3 had obtained an ex parte decree order of divorce by fraudulent means and by forging signatures of respondent No.2, acknowledging receipt of the numberice which she had never received from the companycerned Court.
She also accused her sisters in law, Neena and Meghna for indulging in such harassment along with the appellants.
According to the wife Smt.
Allegations regarding physical torture of respondent No.2 and her being abandoned on the road on the date of incident in question as also the allegation about dowry harassment were factually companyrect and made out a clear case for prosecuting the appellants.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court the appellants preferred Criminal Revision No.1241 of 2010 which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the same did number make out a case for quashing of the proceedings against the appellants.
This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 6th May, 2010, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby Criminal Revision No.1241 of 2010 filed by the appellants has been dismissed and order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar dismissing an application for discharge affirmed.
The factual backdrop in which the matter arises may be summarised as under Appellant No.3 Naveen Ahlawat and respondent number2 Smt.
This was companyclusively established by the fact that the ex parte decree dated 31st May, 2006 had been eventually set aside by the Court in terms of order dated 28th July, 2007.
