1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln (C482)No. 898 of 2005 1. Sapan Kumar Ray S/O Shri Kalipad Ray. 2. Kalipad Ray S/O Doib Charan Ray. 3. Dr. Nirmal Mandal S/O Late Sashi Bhusan Ray. 4. Veethika Mistri W/O Sapan Kumar Ray, D/O Vimal Mistri 5. Vimal Mistri S/O Niwaran Mistri All R/O Village Chandiya Hazara, Bengali Colony, P.S Hazara, Tehsil Puranpur, District Pilibhit ………………………. Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Beena Devi @ Beena Rani D/O Shri Neeranjan Mandal, R/O Ward no. 6, Dineshpur P.S Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar …………..Respondents Shri M.K. Goyal, Advocate present for the petitioners Smt Mamta Bisht A.G.A present for the State of Uttarakhand None present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of the this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 573 of 2005, Smt Beena Devi vs. Sapan Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 2 (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. (3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1 Sapan Kumar Ray got married to respondent no.2 Beena Devi in the year 1991. Two children (one son & one daughter) born out of the wedlock. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that said marriage got dissolved by decree of divorce passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pilibhit, on 31.05.1996, in matrimonial petition no. 95 of 1996. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the criminal complaint in question was filed in the year 2005, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. (after a period of 9 years of decree of divorce), in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C, which is nothing but abuse a process of law on the part of the complainant. (4) I have gone through the judgment and order dated 31.05.1996 (copy Annexure 1 of the petition) passed by which marriage between the petitioner no.1 Sapan Kumar Ray and respondent no.2 Beena Devi was dissolved. Perusal of the criminal complaint in question (copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition) shows that concealing the fact of divorce the respondent no.2 has alleged that her husband and in laws harassed her for non fulfillment of demand of dowry and committed ‘marpeet’. On said complaint the trial court has summoned the petitioner as an accused to face the trial. Respondent no.2 has not turned up to contradict the fact that alleged in the present petition before this court, are wrong 3 even after being personally served with the notice. In such circumstances, this court has no option but to accept the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners supported by the decree of divorce passed by Civil Judge Senior Division Pilibhit. That being so, the criminal complaint filed by the respondent no.2 alleging dowry harassment, after 9 years of decree of divorce, is nothing but abuse of process of law. (5) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case no. 573 of 2005, Smt Beena Devi vs. Sapan Kumar Ray and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.27.04.2010 NP