IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 96/2006 (Compounding Application No. 752/2010) Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 690/2010 (Compounding Application No. 753/2010) Nitin Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 20, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Since both these petitions involve common prayers and arise from the same FIR in which the petitioners are accused, hence, they are being decided by this common order. These petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the summoning order dated 7.5.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 782/2005, State v. Nitin Kumar & Ors. under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Parties have filed compounding application. Today, the petitioner Nitin Kumar and complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Renu appeared in person before this Court. The complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Renu stated before this Court that she does not want to live with her husband Nitin Kumar and also does not want to compromise the matter and she further denied the contents of the compounding application wherein it has been mentioned that she has been living peacefully with her husband/petitioner Nitin Kumar. Hence, compounding application is misconceived and is hereby rejected. Heard Mr. LK Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. VD Bisen, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 on the merits of the case. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Renu lodged an FIR with PS Dalanwala with the averments that she was married to petitioner Nitin Kumar on 6.2.2003. Soon after the marriage, petitioners started harassing her for dowry and demanded rupees one lakh and a motorbike and threatened that if the said demand would not be fulfilled then they would kill her. She informed her parents on telephone about the said demand of the petitioners. On 7.8.2003, petitioners called her father at Ludhiana. On 9.8.2003 when her parents and brother reached at Ludhiana, petitioners reiterated their aforesaid demand before them and when her parents expressed their inability in fulfilling the said demand of the petitioners, then the petitioners abused them and also committed marpit with them and thereafter ousted the complaint/respondent no. 2, her parents and brother from the house and since then the respondent no. 2 has been living with her parents at Dehradun. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners as Case Crime No. 306/2003 under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and thereafter the learned CJM, Dehradun took cognizance of the offences and passed the summoning order dated 7.5.2005 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 2 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 summoned. 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 petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 14.2.2006 passed C-482 Petition No. 96/2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 3