IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 940 of 2005 Smt. Usha Sharma & others … Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand (now Uttarakhand) & another … Respondents Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent no. 1 Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 180 of 2005, Sangeet Bala Vs Ravi Bhusan & others, under Section 406 of I.P.C. pending in the court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 – Smt. Sangeet Bala filed a complaint under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. The court below after having considered the complaint as well as the statement of the witnesses of the complainant, summoned the petitioners to face the trial under Section 406 of I.P.C. The petitioners have thus challenged the summoning order as well as have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 3. Heard Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent no. 1, Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 2 4. As far as the case against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 is concerned, I think that prima-facie, the offence is made out against them on the perusal of the record available before me. But the case against respondent No. 4 – Smt. Sangita Agnihotri W/o Sunil Agnihotri is concerned, the case entirely stands on different footing. The petitioner No. 4 – Smt. Sangita Agnihotri is the sister of Ravi Bhushan Sharma who is the husband of respondent No. 2 – Smt. Sangeet Bala and it has been specifically pleaded in para 21 of the petition that she is married and working as a teacher in the Government School and she is also residing in her matrimonial family since 1989, after her marriage. This paragraph has not been specifically controverted in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. The complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners in 2005 which is much later than the marriage of the petitioner No. 4. Therefore, to my mind, there is no question of breach of trust on the part of the petitioner No. 4. As petitioner No. 4 is residing in a separate house and there does not appear to be any reason that she must be interfering in the matrimonial affairs of respondent No. 2 – Smt. Sangeet Bala and her husband. 5. I am, therefore, of the view that no prima facie case against petitioner No. 4 is made out under Section 406 of I.P.C. and to my mind the proceedings of criminal case pending against petitioner No. 4 is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the proceedings of the criminal case No. 180 of 2005 against petitioner No. 4 – Smt. Sangita Agnihotri is hereby quashed and the petition is thus partly allowed. 3 7. As far as proceedings of Criminal Case No. 180 of 2005 pending against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, the same will continue and petition filed before this Court by them is accordingly dismissed. 8. The matter is pending before the trial court since 2005, therefore, it will be appropriate to issue direction to the trial court that the matter should be disposed of expeditiously. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 16.08.2010 ASWAL