2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 1030 of 2006 Mohd. Usman Rao S/o Mohd. Irfan R/o Village Tanda Bhanada Police Station Manglaur District Haridwar ……..…Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee 3. Smt. Gulshan Ara W/o Mohd. Usman Rao D/o Shri Abrar Hussain R/o Village Hal Mohalla Bangha Mahigram Roorkee P.S. Kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar .....……Respondents Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for sheet Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has challenged 3 the summoning order dated 27.09.2006, passed by judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in criminal complaint case no. 117 of 2006, Gulshan Ara vs. Mohd. Usman Rao, relating to offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Mohd. Usman Rao got married to respondent no. 3 Gulshan Ara on 02.05.2004, within limits of Tehsil, Roorkee. After their marriage their relations soured. Respondent no. 3 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and his relatives, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is also alleged by her in the criminal complaint that her ‘STRIDHAN’ which included the articles mentioned in the criminal complaint were not returned to her, and misappropriated by the petitioner and his relatives. The trial court after recording statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C, and that of the witnesses Smt. Zarina and Yameen under section 202 Cr.P.C, summoned the accused (present petitioner) to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C. Aggrieved 4 by said order dated 27.09.2006, this petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent no. 3 is counter blast, after she was divorced by the petitioner. It is pleaded that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent no. 3. As to the misappropriation of ‘STRIDHAN’ it is denied that the petitioner had misappropriated ‘STRIDHAN’ of his wife. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record this Court finds that in the present case the substantial question is as to whether the petitioner has actually misappropriated the ‘STRIDHAN’ of his wife or not. It is question of fact which can be seen only by the trial court after recording the evidence of the parties. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to give its opinion on the basis of half baked evidence on the point as to whether the petitioner has misappropriated ‘STRIDHAN’ of his wife or not. After going through the impugned summoning order, this Court finds that the same is based on evidence recorded by the Magistrate under section 200 and section 5 202 Cr.P.C. There appears no illegality in the order. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Mohd. Usman Rao surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Dt. 03.06.2010 Parul (Prafulla C.Pant,J)