1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln No. 288 of 2010 Smt. Rooplali Aggarwal W/O Shri Shyam Aggarwal D/O Late Virendra Kumar Rajvanshi At present R/O H No. 100/4, Lane No.2, Shrirampuram, Kanwali Road, P.S Vasant Vihar, Dehradun ………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Home Secretary Dehradun …………..Respondent Shri A.Rab, Advocate present for the petitioner Smt Mamta Bisht A.G.A with Shri M.A.Khan Brief Holder present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 15 of February 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 4th in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2009, Roopali Aggarwal vs. State of Uttarakhand. 2 (2) By said order the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 04.07.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate, II Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. of 2009 Roopali Aggarwal vs. Ram Kumar Aggarwal, whereby, said court had rejected the application of the petitioner under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to Ram kumar Aggarwal on 18.06.2004. One son Master Ansh born out of the wedlock of 18.04.2005. The petitioner’s allegations are that she was ousted by her husband and in laws on 19.05.2008, and she was subjected to cruelty for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. She made an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police but no action was taken. There after she moved an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, said Judicial Magistrate after obtaining report from the police and after hearing the complainant/petitioner, dismissed the application. (4) Aggrieved by the dated 30th of March 2009, the complainant/petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2009. After hearing the parties the revisional court dismissed the revision. (5) Having gone through the order passed by the Magistrate and the revisional court, this court finds that both the courts below have given detailed reasons for the order passed by them. There appears no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. 3 (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders challenged before it. (7) Therefore the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner if he so likes may file criminal complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate Dt.08.4.2010 NP (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)