IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 640/2008 Smt. Smriti & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …….Respondents July 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. MC Kandpal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh Sah, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the chargesheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2096/2008, State of Uttarakhand v. Sri Yogendra Nath Pandey & Ors. under Section 306 IPC pending in the Court of CJM, Nainital. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 3 lodged an FIR on 19.11.2007 with the averments that his son Nalin Awashti was married to petitioner no. 1 Smt. Smriti. On 18.11.2007, he was informed that his son Nalin Awasthi has committed suicide. Thereafter the complainant came to know on the basis of the letters written by his son before the suicide that he was harassed by the petitioners. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioners. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which learned CJM, Nainital issued summons to the petitioners. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC has stated that on 18.11.2007 he was informed by the Air Force Station, Bhowali on telephone that his son Nalin Awasthi who was posted there has committed suicide in his room. Thereafter he went at the place of occurrence along with his relatives on 19.11.2007 and then he came to know that his son has committed suicide because of the harassment by the petitioners. His son and petitioner no. 1 Smt. Smriti married to each other on 12.5.2007 on their own as they liked each other and the complainant had not taken any dowry in the marriage. After the marriage, Smt. Smriti used to outrage his son and stated that she will not live along with her in-laws and pressurized his son to build a separate house. Petitioner Smt. Smriti was suffering from disease and she also had an affair with someone before the marriage due to which his son was very tense. Smt. Smriti used to publicly insult her husband. Other petitioners used to support Smt. Smriti and they also pressurized Nalin Awasthi to accept the demands of Smt. Smriti, who also used to threaten his son over the telephone. She also threatened his son that she will commit suicide and will implicate him and other family members in a dowry case. Likewise, the other petitioners also threatened his son. He has also stated that his son Nalin Awashthi has written a suicide note and also a diary in which he has stated that the petitioners are responsible for his committing the suicide. State has also filed a counter affidavit wherein the allegations made in the FIR have been supported. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under the aforesaid section. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence 2 collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been chargesheeted. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 14.10.2008 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH . 3