IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 604 of 2007 (Petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) Mohd. Arif and others ….… Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1. None present for the respondent no.2. Dated of Order: 12.12.2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Misc. Application, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 438 of 2007, Mohd. Ansar Vs. Mohd. Arif and others, under Sections 498-A read with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pertaining to Police Station-Tanakpur, District-Champawat. It has also been prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 2nd July, 2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in the said complaint case against all the applicants. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that on filing this petition, the proceedings were stayed against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 who are respectively the brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the bride Sabnam. However, the proceedings against the husband/Mohd. Arif were not stayed and consequently the same have been concluded by the trial court by passing the judgment of acquittal on 20th March, 2010 by Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur. Hence, petition in respect of applicant no. 1 Mohd. Arif has rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the petition in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 6. The facts in brief are that father of the bride Sabnam, namely, Mohd. Ansar, private opposite party no. 2, instituted a complaint on 06.06.2007 against all the applicants stating that he spoused his daughter with Mohd. Arif on 18th February, 2008 as per Muslim customs and rituals. Soon after the solemnization of the wedding, the applicants/petitioners commenced to show their insatiable conduct towards bride Sabnam raising the demand of dowry including cash worth `80,000/-. They were very tyrants towards his daughter, Sabnam, which manifested in the letter written by his daughter on 02.08.2006 and 7th February, 2007. It was alleged that on 13th May, 2007 at about 6:30 hours in the evening, all the applicants came to the house of Mohd. Ansar and demanded dowry of `80,000/-, failure wherefor they refused to carry Sabnam with them. Complainant Mohd. Ansar strived to persuade but in vain, rather they intimidated and extended threat to the complainant with a warning that they will fetch Sabnam only after the fulfillment of their said demand of dowry. Learned Magistrate having recorded the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence and passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2007 summoning all the petitioners/applicants, as aforementioned. This order of cognizance as well as the complaint has been challenged by means of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has placed reliance upon the precedent of a Single Judge of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State, reported in 2000 (1) Crimes 73. Although that case was of a different nature but the ratio which can be applied in the 3 present case too, was that when other accused persons were tried and acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, and evidence adduced in that case was inseparable and indivisible for the petitioner too, then latter could not be treated differently on the basis of said evidence. In the instant case, the allegations raised in the complaint are identical against Mohd. Arif as well as rest of the applicants. So, even if the case against rest of the applicants is left to be tried by the Magistrate, then evidence against them can be in no way different, which failed to prove the guilt against the husband Mohd. Arif. In the facts and circumstances, as explicated above, this petition has force and deserves acceptance. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 2nd July, 2007 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 438 of 2007, Mohd. Ansar Vs. Mohd. Arif and others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District-Champawat, against Abdul Sattar, Smt. Haseena Begum, Smt. Nasima Begum, Smt. Farida Begum and Smt. Naima Begum are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.12.2011 ML