IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 316 of 2010 Smt. Nidhi Srivastava and others …….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State as well as Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the chargesheet filed by them and consequent summoning order issued by the court below. At the heart of the matter is a matrimonial dispute. The complainant i.e. respondent no. 2 was married to one Divyesh Srivastava on 10.12.2007, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, at Indore in Madhya Pradesh. Respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home in September, 2008 and reached Rishikesh i.e. her parental house. At the background is the allegation of demand of dowry by all the applicants as well as her husband (who is not before this Court as one of the applicants). Since she left her husband’s house at Indore, she was staying in her “Maika” for the last two years. Subsequently, the applicant allege that there was a compromise between the parties and the husband of the applicant left his job at Indore and settled at Rishikesh, as he got the job in a Company, namely, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Things, however, did not go well with the couple, as the F.I.R. alleges an incident of 7.11.2009 whereby the applicants i.e. applicant nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 7 did quarrel with the complainant/respondent no. 2 at Rishikesh. Thereafter on 13.11.2009 the husband of the complainant dropped the complainant i.e. his wife at her parent’s 2 house at Rishikesh and did not return. All these were the reasons to her to file an F.I.R. against the applicants. It has been now stated at the bar that short of the present criminal case between the parties, there is no other case instituted between the parties inasmuch as there is no case for dissolution of marriage pending at Rishikesh, except one case of restitution of conjugal rights which has been filed by the husband at Indore and is pending before the court at Indore. Out of the present applicants, applicant nos. 1 to 4 are the sisters of the husband. Applicant no. 5 is a lady who is their neighbour at Indore, against whom there are no allegations of demand of dowry. Applicant nos. 6 and 7 are the brothers-in-law of the husband. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that out of the alleged incident, incident dated 7.11.2009 and 13.11.2009 have happened at Rishikesh. Therefore, the court at Rishikesh has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Though most from the averments which have been stated in the F.I.R. which have resulted in filing of a chargesheet against the present applicants, prima facie a case is made out as far as present applicant nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 7 are concerned. They must, therefore, appear before the Magistrate. The court below shall take into consideration the fact that most of the applicant are ladies and all are residing in Indore, their bail applications will be considered and disposed of on the same day, as far as possible. Since the applicants are from outside and if the Court deems it fit and proper to release them on bail, they shall be released on submitting a personal bond. The matter shall then proceed before the court below from the stage at which it was left. As far as applicant no. 5 is concerned, from the F.I.R. itself no offence seems to have made out against her. Therefore, the proceedings as regarding applicant no. 1 are hereby set aside. It is clarified that the matter shall proceed against applicant nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since they have to appear before the court below, a date may be fixed. On this submission, let them be present before the court below on 25.10.2010. 3 The Court below will keep in mind the observation of this Court, as stated above. With these observations, present C-482 application is disposed of. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.9.2010 Avneet