IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 713/2006 Vijay Verma & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 20, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the chargesheet dated 24.7.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2076 of 2006, State v. Vijay Verma & Ors. under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Gunjan Verma lodged an FIR with PS Pantnagar with the averments that she was married to petitioner no. 1 Vijay Verma on 13.12.2002 as per Hindu rites and her father had given dowry in the marriage according to his status. After 3-4 months of the marriage, petitioners started harassing her for more dowry and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a motorbike. On 3.2.2005, petitioners forced to sign her on a blank paper and tried to burn her by spilling kerosene oil on her body but she managed to escape from there and reached her maternal house along with her new born baby. She informed about this incident to senior police officers on 4.4.2005, 11.4.2005 and 8.6.2005 but no action was taken. The matter also came up before the Mahila Helpline but no conclusion was finally arrived at. On 18.12.2005, her husband and father-in-law came to her maternal house and again made the demand of dowry. With these averments, respondent no. 2 filed the FIR on 5.5.2006. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners as Case Crime No. 604/2006 under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet dated 24.7.2006 against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been chargesheeted. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 30.8.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 2 3