1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 248 of 2006 1. Alok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma 2. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Sharma 3. Smt.Vichitra Sharma W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma All R/o Kyorar, P.S. Milak District Rampur (U.P.) 4. Mukesh Pandey 5. Dinesh Kumar Pandey Both S/o Satya Prakash R/o Dhanaili, P.S. Milak District Rampur (U.P.) ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Omkar Nath Dubey S/o Shri Kapil Dev Dubey R/o Sugar Factory, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar ....……Respondents Shri V.D. Bisen, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Shri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate present for the 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. 1430 of 2005, Omkar Nath Dubey Vs. Alok Kumar & others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Brief facts, of the case, are that respondent no. 2 Omkar Nath Dubey filed a criminal complaint before the trial court on 20.07.2005. It is pleaded in the criminal complaint that complainant's daughter Manju got married to petitioner no. 1 Alok Kumar Sharma on 11.05.2003. She was given dowry including STRIDHAN. It appears that after sometime the relations between the parties to matrimony got soured, and complainant's daughter filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., before Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, and also got criminal proceedings initiated in respect of offences punishable under section 498A IPC, and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the complaint in question, the complainant has given details of the STRIDHAN in para 2 (of the complaint), and it is alleged that the STRIDHAN 3 was not returned to the daughter of the complainant. The trial court after recording statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., and that of Krishnanad Dubey and Om Prakash Pandey under section 202 Cr.P.C, summoned the petitioners namely Alok Kumar Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Vichitra Sharma, Mukesh Pandey and Dinesh Kumar Pandey, to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under section 406 IPC. The said order was passed by the trial court on 19.10.2005. Aggrieved by said order the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is moved on behalf of the accused under section 482 Cr.P.C.. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent no. 2 to implicate the petitioners in criminal case due to matrimonial discord between his daughter, and the petitioner no. 1. It is pointed out that petitioner no. 1 Alok Kumar Sharma is husband, petitioner no. 2 Pradeep Kumar Sharma is father-in-law, petitioner no. 3 Smt. Vichitra Sharma is mother-in-law, petitioner no. 4 Mukesh Pandey and petitioner no. 5 Dinesh Kumar Pandey are maternal uncles-in-law of the daughter 4 of the complainant. 5. From the papers on record it is evident that petitioner no. 4 Mukesh Pandey and petitioner no. 5 Dinesh Kumar Pandey are residents of Village Dhanaili while the petitioner no. 1 Alok Kumar Sharma (husband), and his parents (petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3) are residents of Village Kyorar. It is nowhere stated either of the witnesses examined under section 200, 202 Cr.P.C., that any of the part of the STIRDHAN is held up by the petitioner no. 4 and petitioner no.5 in their village Dhanaili. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner no. 4 Mukesh Pandey and petitioner no. 5 Dinesh Kumar Pandey who are maternal uncles of petitioner no. 1 are falsely implicated due to the matrimonial discord between the daughter of the complainant and her husband Alok Kumar Sharma. To make the two to stand trial is nothing but abuse of process of law. However, same cannot be said with regard to the remaining three petitioners who are husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the complainant. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the 5 papers on record, this Court is of the view that present petition deserves to be partly allowed. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is partly allowed. The proceedings of criminal case no. 1430 of 2005, Omkar Nath Dubey Vs. Alok Kumar & others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, are hereby quashed so far the same relate to the petitioner no. 4 Mukesh Pandey and petitioner no. 5 Dinesh Kumar Pandey. However, the trial court may proceed as against petitioner no. 1 Alok Kumar Sharma, petitioner no. 2 Pradeep Kumar Sharma and petitioner no. 3 Vichitra Sharma. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 08.06.2011