IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.201 of 2006 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Jagdeep Kumar ………. Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ..…. Opposite Parties Dated: November 3, 2011 Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant Sri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 None for the respondent no.2 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this petition, the prayer has been made to set aside the order of cognizance dated 28.11.2005 passed by C.J.M., Dehradun in criminal case no.2387 of 2005, State Vs. Jagdeep Kumar and two others. The said case was registered on the basis of the submission of chargesheet in crime no.239 of 2005 for the offence of Sections 498-A, 506, 406 and 120-B IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pertaining to P.S. Dalanwala. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no representation on behalf of the respondent no.2 though service has been effected upon her personally. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned brief holder for the State and perused the material available in file. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged on 31.8.2005 by Smt. Meera, wife of petitioner Jagdeep Kumar against her husband and her father in law Gyanendra Singh as well as against her mother in law Smt. Santosh. The couple took the nuptial vows on 27.3.2003 as per Hindu rituals at Dehradun. After passing few months blissfully, the differences developed and it was alleged that husband Jagdeep Kumar, with the aid 2 and cooperation of his parents, began to tease and torture Smt. Meera in sundry ways, demanding the dowry also. It appears that the parents’ house of Smt. Meera as well as her in-laws house are in the close vicinity. Petitioner Jagdeep Kumar filed a divorce petition no.216 of 2004 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and got it decreed ex parte on dated 7.12.2004. The copy of the judgment of the family court shows that Smt. Meera was sufficiently served but she did not put her appearance for resisting the petition, so the same was heard ex parte and decreed thereafter. The statement recorded by the I.O., pursuant to the lodging of the FIR by her, shows that Smt. Meera continued to live in the house of her husband, notwithstanding the fact of pending the divorce petition instituted by her husband against her and whenever the process might have reached for service upon opposite party no.2, the same was managed by her husband, showing as has been served, taking the benefit of the close vicinity of both houses, and she was not permitted even to acquaint herself regarding the reaching of the service and pending of the divorce petition. With the result, she continued to live in his house even six months after of the ex parte decree of divorce on dated 7.12.2004. After procuring the decree, as stated above, on 24.5.2005, the accused persons abused Smt. Meera demanding Rs.1.00 lacs, expelling her from the house and they also informed regarding the factum of ex parte divorce. After submission of the chargesheet, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance in the matter, which has been separately challenged by two petitions; one petition was filed by Gyanendra Singh and Smt. Santosh (parents of Jagdeep Kumar) bearing C482 petition no.188 of 2006 on dated 25.3.2006, while a week thereafter, the instant petition bearing no.201 of 2006 was filed by 3 husband Jagdeep Kuamr, challenging the same order of cognizance and chargesheet. The address of the petitioners in both the petitions is also the same. So, it is not believable to show that Jagdeep Kumar on the one hand and his parents on the other, were not aware about the filing of the petitions by each other. Although, there is no bar for filing the separate petitions but the propriety demands that in order to save the time of the Court from being wasted, they should have filed their petitions collectively or if not filed so, then initiatives should have been taken for clustering of these petitions for disposal by a single judgment. This was not done, with the result the petition no.188 of 2006 filed by the parents, was heard and decided on merits resulting into dismissal. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statements recorded by the I.O u/s 161 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to scrupulously analyse the each and every factual aspect of the case which is the subject matter of trial court. There is no abuse of the process by filing the chargesheet and taking cognizance in the matter by the Magistrate. The petition is totally devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order granted by this Court on dated 4.4.2006 is vacated. Let the information be sent to the court below to proceed with the trial ahead. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 03.11.2011 Rajeev Dang