IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 525 of 2011 Bhimsen Gupta S/o Late Lekh Raj Gupta R/o Ward no. 2, Sitarganj District Udham Singh Nagar ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Om Prakash Gupta, S/o Narayan Das 3. Smt. Saroj Gupta, W/o Shri Om Prakash Gupta 4. Ravi Gupta, S/o Shri Om Prakash Gupta Respondent no. 2 to 4 are R/o Mohalla Rang Rajan Kasba and P.S. Paliakalan, District Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. ....……Respondents Shri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisth, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of 2 the order dated 27.04.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal revision no. 139 of 2008, Bhimsen Gupta vs. Ravi Gupta and others, whereby said court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 05.09.2008, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, in criminal revision no. 1301 of 2007, State vs. Saroj Gupta and others. 3. Brief facts, of the case, are that the petitioner attempted to get married his minor daughter with respondent no. 4 Ravi Gupta when he too was minor. Respondent no. 2 Om Prakash Gupta and respondent no. 3 Smt. Saroj Gupta are parents of the minor boy. It was alleged that the minor boy, and his parents demanded dowry due to which marriage could not be solemnized. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that no offence is said to have been made out against respondent no. 4 Ravi Gupta who was minor at the time of the settled marriage. It is admitted to the parties that the marriage could not be solemnized and, after the girl and boy attained majority they got married to different spouses. In these circumstances, the trial court sentenced the respondent no. 2 Om Prakash Gupta and respondent no. 3 Smt. Saroj Gupta to the period already undergone, and also directed them to pay fine of ` 7,500/- (while their son Ravi 3 Gupta was acquitted). The complainant Bhimsen Gupta aggrieved by the order passed by trial court filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, after hearing the parties, found that the trial court has committed no error of law. 4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C.. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court has awarded the sentence less than the minimum prescribed under law i.e. section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Said section allowed that with the special reasons the sentence can be awarded less than the minimum prescribed one. The facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant interference with the orders passed by the courts below. 5. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 20.06.2011