IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.562 of 2006 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) Smt. Preeti Rana and others ……. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ..…. Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. By way of this petition, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the order of cognizance dated 12.1.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (First) Dehradun in complaint case no.1775 of 2005, Nirmala Bhatt Vs. Preeti Rana and others. It has also been prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the above titled complaint case. To understand and appreciate the substance and veracity of the facts, as alleged in the complaint, it is quite relevant to mention the background facts existing between the complainant Nirmala Bhatt vis-à-vis the petitioners. Smt. Nirmala Bhatt was espoused with Nand Kishore Bhatt way back in 1969. Sri Bhatt was employed in Survey of India, Dehradun. Out of the wedlock, four sons and one daughter Smt. Preeti Rana were born but the relations between the couple could not remain amicably happy and their matrimonial life was soured because of the intervention of another man, named Pancham S/o Balu Rana, resident of village Mothrowala, Dehradun. The illicit relations were allegedly developed between Nirmala Bhatt and Pancham, which segregated Nirmala Bhatt with her husband Nand Kishore Bhatt, and that during his lifetime, she commenced to reside with Pancham at some other address. Smt. Nirmala Bhatt, while living separately from her husband, moved an 2 application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in 1990 which was rejected by the Special Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun on 5.11.1993 on the ground of adultery and it was held that Nand Kishore Bhatt was bringing up his five children by maintaining and keeping them with him. After that, Nirmala Bhatt filed a revision against this order of rejection of maintenance, which too was dismissed. Sri Nand Kishore Bhatt filed a divorce petition no.692/93 u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which was decreed ex parte on 6.6.1995. Smt. Nirmala Bhatt moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for restoration of the matter and setting aside of the ex parte decree of divorce, which was rejected on merits. Further, Nirmala Bhatt moved a miscellaneous civil appeal no.63 of 2001, which was adjudicated by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun wherein it was categorically held that Smt. Nirmala Bhatt was living in adultery with her paramour and thus, passing a life which was quite immoral and against the allegiance of her deceased husband. So, the appeal preferred by Nirmala Bhatt was also dismissed. It has been apprised by learned counsel of Smt. Nirmala Bhatt that against that dismissal order, a writ petition is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also apprised that Nand Kishore Bhatt has breathed his last on 15.8.2000 and just within two days of his death, i.e. on 17.8.2000, Nirmala Bhatt applied for securing a job under the Dying in Harness Rules, but the Survey of India declined her claim under the Rules. Smt. Nirmala Bhatt, having an insatiable eye over the residential house of her late husband Nand Kishore Bhatt, has filed this complaint on 18.8.2005. The number of the said house is 156 (Old No.74/10), situated at Hathi Barkala, Dehradun, where the sons and other children, left by Nand 3 Kishore Bhatt, are residing and this lady, as she herself has mentioned, is residing in House No.36, Idgah Kumhar Mandi, P.S. Garhi Cantt., Dehradun. She has raised the allegations against her own daughter Smt. Preeti Rana, son in law Charan Singh, son Sunil Bhatt, sister Savitri Pandey and nephew Manoj Kumar Semwal that on 7.7.2005 at about 8 PM, all of them came at the house situated at Hathi Barkala and dismantled the wall of two rooms as well as the tin sheets of the ceiling. Besides, she has also raised the allegations that her son in law Charan Singh strived to outrage her modesty, which compelled her to leave the house of Hathi Barakala and went to dwell in house no.36, Idgah, Kumhar Mandi. She examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and her two witnesses, Pancham on 22.11.2005 and Mohd. Wahid on 14.12.2005 were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, having gone through the statements of the complainant as well as of her witnesses, took cognizance of the matter and passed the order impugned. It is pertinent to mention that Sri Pancham, who has been got examined as a witness u/s 202 Cr.P.C., is the same person who was indulged in revelling with Smt. Nirmala Bhatt, as has been categorically held in the judicial pronouncements while adjudicating the divorce petition as well as in the petition for maintenance, aforementioned. Another witness examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. by the complainant is Mohd. Wahid, who is said to be a milk seller. Both these are the chance witnesses and the entire tale, as has been narrated in the complaint, appears to be quite concocted and fabricated, just with a view to avenge the applicants, who are none but the kith and kins of Smt. Nirmala Bhatt herself. Thus, it is quite an abuse of the process of law. As such, the impugned order of cognizance is not sustainable in the eyes of law which liable to be quashed. 4 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 12.1.2006 and also the proceedings of complaint case no.1775 of 2005, Smt. Nirmala Bhatt Vs. Smt. Preeti Rana, titled above, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) November 28, 2011 Rajeev Dang