IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 505/2006 Smt. Seema & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Bhunesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 17.2.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 948/2006, State v. Sudhir Tyagi & Ors. under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of CJM, Haridwar. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Priya Sharma lodged an FIR on 14.4.2004 with the averments that she got married to Sudhir Tyagi on 21.1.2002 as per the Hindu rites in which her parents spent Rs. 2,50,000/- after selling the old house. Rs. 50,000/- was given in cash and a motorcycle and other articles and gold ornaments were also given to her husband and her in-laws in the marriage. After two months of the marriage, her husband, the petitioners and the other co- accused started harassing her for the dowry. On 22.10.2002 she gave birth to a daughter and thereafter the petitioners and the other co-accused again started harassing for the dowry. Her parents had also given Rs. 10,000/- on two times in January 2003 and tried to convince the petitioners and the other co- accused not to demand any money in future. But even thereafter, the accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- for opening a clinic. When the complainant refused, then she was beaten and they also planned to burn her alive. She was also harassed for giving birth to a female child. On 2.7.2003, she was brought to her maternal home by her husband and other co-accused and they told her father that if Rs. 50,000/- shall not be given, then they should keep his daughter in her maternal house. On 15.2.2004, the petitioners and other co-accused again came at the maternal house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and when her parents requested them not to harass their daughter, then the petitioners and the other co-accused hurled abuses and said that they should keep her daughter and her granddaughter forever and Sudhir Tyagi shall be remarried. Her stridhan was also not returned. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners and other co- accused. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and the other co-accused, on the basis of which learned CJM, Haridwar has taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and the other co-accused vide order dated 17.2.2006. State has also filed a counter affidavit wherein the averments made in the FIR have been supported. 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 section. 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 2 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, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 6.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 3