IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 949 of 2006 1. Mohd. Yaqub S/o Mohd. Muratib 2. Mohd. Irfan S/o Mohd. Yaqub R/o Village Tanda Bhanada, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar. ………….. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal /State of Uttarakhand 2. J.M. (Ist Class), Roorkee. 3. Smt. Zareena W/o late Akbar R/o Banda Road Imran Ki Gali, Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………… Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advoate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 & 2 / State. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1696 of 2004; State Vs. Usman and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kotwali, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Yaqub is grandfather of husband of daughter of respondent No. 3 (complainant). Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure –3 to the petition, which is copy of the Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, in which on 01.01.2003, age of petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Yaqub is shown 77 years. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate an old and infirm man of the family in the matrimonial dispute between his grandson Usman and his grand daughter-in-law Gulshan Ara. 4) It is also contended that petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Irfan (father of Usman) also lives separately. However, said fact is disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate Mohd. Yaqub, an old and infirm person, in the matrimonial dispute between his grandson and grand daughter-in-law. 6) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. The proceedings as against petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Yaqub, in Criminal Case No. 1696 of 2004; State Vs. Usman and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, police station Kotwali, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, are hereby quashed. However, the trial of accused Usman and his father Mohd. Irfan (petitioner No. 2) is not interfered with. It is further observed that if the petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Irfan surrenders before the court concerned, and moves application for bail, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 11, 2010. H. Negi