Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 husband, father in law and mother in law and also against brother and sister of respondent No.1.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition but even this Court dismissed the SLP on February 23, 1998.
The High Court vide its order dated October 22, 1997, partly allowed the revision and quashed charges against brother and sister of respondent No.1.
At that time also, the respondents demanded car, companyour TV and more gold.
The appellant herein is the wife of Pawan Kumar Jain respondent No.1.
He further stated that he was ready to pay maintenance to the appellant.
The respondents then once again filed a petition in the High Court by invoking Section 482 of the Code on February 23, 1999.
The appellant filed her reply to the said petition.
The High Court, however, held that so far as other respondents were companycerned, charges companyld number be quashed and dismissed the petition.
According to the appellant, on July 10, 1996, number bailable warrants were issued.
The said order is challenged in the present appeal.
On 17th March, 1996, the appellants father brought the appellant to Sagar.
According to the respondents, the petitioner wife insisted for more amount.
By the said order, the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code and quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant.
In July, 1995, the 1st respondent was transferred from Raipur to Raigarh and in spite of the request by the appellant, she was number taken by her husband along with him.
After the order passed by this Court in August, 1998, respondent Nos.
1 to 3 as well as against other accused.
In the High Court, however, the 1st respondent made a statement through his advocate that parties had decided to live together and had settled the dispute amicably.
Respondent No.1 was called at the Police Station and he executed a writing that he would number ill treat the appellant.
The High Court vide the impugned order, allowed the petition holding that there was abuse of process of law by the appellant in initiating criminal proceedings.
On September 28, 1996, challan was filed against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
According to the appellant, the greed of the respondents for dowry was so much that in 1991, the first respondent went to the extent of getting quality of gold ornaments given by her father tested by a Goldsmith which were found to be of good quality.
The appellant lodged a companyplaint in Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur on May 10, 1998 which was registered as Crime No.
After the marriage, she remained with her husband for few days at Jabalpur and during that period, her husband and in laws harassed her as her father had number given sufficient amount of dowry.
She was also companypelled to sign a document purported to be a companypromise deed between the appellant and the 1st respondent.
It is also the case of the appellant that on December 14, 1991, marriage of the appellants younger sister was solemnized at Sagar and respondent No.1 and his father had companye to attend it.
On September 5, 1990, the appellant gave birth to twins.
738 of 1998.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be numbered.
When the demand was number met with, the first respondent attacked the appellant and caused injury to her.
In a petition challenging that action, the High Court partly allowed the petition vide its order dated October 22, 1997 and quashed charges against brother in law and sister in law of the appellant herein but upheld the order of framing of charge against the remaining respondents i.e. respondent Nos.
All the accused challenged the action of framing of charge against them in the High Court by filing a Revision Petition.
One Ram Ratan Jain, who was also knowing the appellant, persuaded the respondents to behave properly but in vain.
Even after giving assurance that she will number be ill treated, she was physically and mentally tortured for dowry.
In May, 1995, again the appellant was assaulted and severely beaten.
The appellant stated that Harish Chandra and Daya Chandra Jain, who were known to her father, learnt about the miserable companydition of the appellant and both of them informed the father of the appellant in September, 1993 about the plight of the appellant at her in laws.
On March 20, 1996, the appellant lodged First Information Report FIR in Women Police Station which was registered as Crime No.
In March, 1992, the 1st respondent took the appellant with him and kept her with his parents at Jabalpur.
On that statement being made, bail was granted to respondent No.1 and his parents.
It has also companye on record that appellant wife filed a suit against the husband for companypensation of Rs.20 lakhs in the Court of First Addl.
On March 8, 1996, the 1st respondent sent a numberice through advocate to father of the appellant stating that he had filed a divorce petition.
6 of 1996 giving details about physical and mental torture and dowry demands by respondent No.1 and his family members.
1 to 3.
On January 30, 1997, charges were framed against respondent Nos.
The appellant informed her father that her husband and in laws were demanding dowry from her and her husband assaulted her and her children had been taken away and they were number allowed to see the mother appellant .
It is the case of the appellant that she married to respondent No.1 on July 8, 1989.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
1362 OF 2004 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The Court was also informed that the parties had almost settled the matter and negotiations were going on with regard to amount to be paid to the wife.
They taunted the appellant saying that had the respondent No.1 married to any other lady, they would have received dowry amount of Rs.8 10 lakhs.
Notice was issued by this Court on April 5, 2004.
2 and 3, namely, Poolchand Jain and Smt.
The efforts of settlement thus failed.
Judge, Sagar.
Sarojbai Jain are parents of respondent No.1 and father in law and mother in law respectively of the appellant.
The respondent No.1 husband offered Rs.7.50 lakhs towards full and final settlement.
1 to 3 again moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of criminal proceedings.
A Revision Petition filed by respondent Nos.
The appellant had to go with her father as the 1st respondent did number take her with him and had also issued numberice for divorce.
The trial Court satisfied that prima facie case was made out and accordingly charges were framed against respondent Nos.
The 1st respondent also gave assurance that he will number use any writing against the appellant said to have been signed by her.
The proceedings were, therefore, quashed.
Respondent Nos.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated October 30, 2003 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.
1442 of 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur.
1 to 3 challenged the order of the High Court by approaching this Court.
