IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.672 of 2008 1. Nandan Pujari, S/o Sh. Shivdeen Pujari 2. Smt. Mithilesh, w/o Sh. Nandan Pujari 3. Km. Monica, D/o Sh. Nandan Pujari All R/o Mohalla Krishanapuri, S-2 House No. 54, Linepar Moradabad, Police Station Manjhola, District Moradabad. 4. Smt. Soni, w/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Atma Ram. 5. Sh. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Atma Ram All R/o Near Main Road, Dhampur, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor. 6. Smt. Pooja, w/o Sh. Vineet Kumar D/o Sh. Nandan Pujari, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Najimabad, District Bijnor. ………. Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttarakahnd, through Secretary Ministy of Home Affairs, Uttarakhand Shasan, Sachivalaya, Subhash Road, Dehradun. 2. Investigation officer, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. 3. Smt.Kusumlata, W/o Ashutosh, D/o Sh. Ramesh R/o Gasai Gali Bhim Goda, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. .…….Opposite parties. Shri Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent No.1/ State. Shri M.K. Goyal, Advocate, present for respondent No. 3/complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 3774 of 2008, State vs. Mithlesh & others relating to offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to the matrimonial discord between the complainant Kusum (respondent No.3) and her husband Ashutosh Giri. No doubt petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is sister- in-law of the complainant who are resident of Moradabad, where complainant (wife) used to live with her husband. It is alleged in the first information report (which was got lodged on an application moved under section 156(3) of 3 Cr.P.C.) that the accused including the husband and the petitioners committed ‘marpeet’ with the complainant due to the non fulfilment of the demand of dowry. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage of the complainant with the son of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 took place in the year 1999. The incident, of marpeet has taken place in the year 2007. Since, the first information report is supported by medical evidence as such without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, it cannot be said that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed as against the husband or the petitioner No.1,Nandan Puri petitioner No.2 Mithilesh and petitioner No.3. Monica. 4. However as against the petitioner No. 4 Smt. Soni, Petitioner No. 5 Mukesh Kumar, and petitioner No. 6 Pooja, it is clear from the papers on record that all these are the residents of District Bijnor. Implicating these three in the case apparently appears to be abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant. Petitioner No. 4 soni (sister-in- law) and petitioner No. 5 Mukesh Kumar (Brother-in-law, Nandoi) live in Dhampur, 4 District Bijnor, petitioner No. 6 Pooja (sister- in law) lives in Nazibabad, District Bijnor. 5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed partly. The impugned charge sheet so far as it relates to petitioner No. 4 Smt. Soni, petitioner No. 5 Mukesh Kumar and petitioner No. 6 Smt. Pooja, is hereby quashed. However, the criminal case No. 3774 of 2008 State vs. Mithlesh & others relating to offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Haridwar may proceed against the remaining accused i.e. Ashutosh, petitioner No. 2 Mithlesh, petitioner No. 1 Nandan Pujari and petitioner No. 3 Monica. It is further observed that if the petitioners namely Nandan Pujari, Smt. Mithilesh and Monica surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt:21.04.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 5 6