1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln No. 320 of 2008 1. Smt. Dharshani Devi, W/O Sri Vidya Dutt Jakhmola, R/O 11/2 Nai Basti Chukhuwala Indra Colony, P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun & others ………. Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand through Smt. Sangita Jakhmola, D/O Sri Swambar Dutt Dobriyal, R/O Dobriyal Timber Rambagh, District Dehradun …………..Opposite parties Shri R.K.S Verma, Advocate present for the petitioners Smt. Mamta Bisht A.G.A, Advocate for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties (2) By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C 1973 petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no899/2008 State vs. Vidya Dutt Jakhmola and others relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the Court of special Judicial Magistrate 1, Dehradun. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 (Sangeeta Jakhmola) got married to Prem Bhallabh Jakhmola (son of petitioner no.1) in the year 2003. The respondent no.2 2 lodged the first information report in November 2007, against her husband, father in law and the petitioners relating to offences punishable under section 498A 323, 506, I.P.C and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Said report was registered as Crime no. 242 of 2007. After investigation the police has submitted charge sheet against accused (including the petitioners). After the Magistrate summoned the petitioners, they filed this petition. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is the mother in law, petitioner no.2 is the brother in law and petitioner no.3 is the sister in law of the complainant, respondent no2. It is pleaded that they are innocent. It is further pleaded that allegations in the first information report are against the husband of complainant. Lastly it is pleaded that the petitioners lived separately from the respondent no 2 and her husband. (5) Whether the petitioners are innocent or not is the matter, which can be examined by the trial Court after recording the evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot give any opinion as to whether the petitioners were actually involved in the alleged offences or not. Shri R.K.S. Verma learned Counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Reshma Bano vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 3 S.C.C (criminal) 86 and it is contended that respondent no.2 can not be allowed to harass the innocent family members due to the enmity between the respondent no.2 and her husband. I have gone through the said case law and found that the facts of said case were different. In the 3 aforesaid case the Court found that even the F.I.R itself does not disclose any offences alleged against the petitioner / applicant of said case. In the present case there are allegations made by the complainant against the present petitioners that offences were committed by them. (6) In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed with the observations that if the petitioners surrender before the Court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (7) Interim order dated 21.05.2008 stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.22.3.2010 Nahid