IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 873 Of 2005 with Stay Vacation Application No. 551 of 2008 1. Smt Shanti W/o Shri Chaman Lal Chadha 2. Chaman Lal Chadha S/o Late Shri Charan Dass Chadha 3. Gautam Chadha S/o Shri Chaman Lal Chadha All are R/o M-281 (FF), Guru Harikishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 ………………..Applicants Versus 1. The State of Uttaranchal(Uttarakhand) through Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttranchal(Uttarakhand) 2. Richa Chadha W/o Shri Gautam Chadha R/o 104/24, Rishikesh Road P.S.Rishikesh, Dist- Uttaranchal(Uttarakhand) ………….Opposite parties Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C), the petitions have sought quashing of the 2 proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1157 of 2005, State vs. Gautam Chadha and others, relating to offences punishable under section 406 I.P.C, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.3 Gautam Chadha got married to respondent no.2 Richa Chadha on 13.12.1999 at Delhi. Two twins namely Sana Chadha and Sparsh Chadha were born out of the wedlock. A First Information Report was lodged by the respondent no.2 Richa Chadha on 26.10.2004 at police station Rishikesh against the petitioners Gauthan Chadha, Shanti and Chamal Lal alleging that the ' Stridhan ' of the complainant was not returned to her by the accused(petitioners). Said report appears to have been registered as crime no. 429 of 2004 relating to offences punishable under section 406 I.P.C, in which, after investigation charge sheet was filed by the Investigating 3 Officer with the finding that on 28.10.2003 complainant was ousted from the house of her husband and the petitioners have failed to return her ' Stridhan ' which includes her jewellery, clothes and other goods. It is that charge sheet which is challenged in these proceedings. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of this petition that the marriage between the petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 has been dissolved, by a decree of divorce. (4) In para-8 of the affidavit filed with the present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C it has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that respondent no.2 was asked to take her goods and articles and notice was sent to her on 07.10.2004. (5) This case was listed on 10.08.2010 , and after perusing the above mentioned para, this court asked learned counsel for the parties that since admittedly some articles and goods of the Respondent no. 2 are lying with the petitioners, the same should be returned to the petitioners immediately. Learned counsel for the respondent 4 no.2 stated that respondent no.2 is ready to go very next day i.e. 11.10.2010 to Delhi to take the articles. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have no objection in giving the articles and goods lying at Delhi belonging to the respondent no.2 on 11.10.2010. (6) Therefore, today when the case was listed again respondent no.2 turned up in person and told that she had gone all the way from Rishikesh to Delhi but she was not given any articles by the petitioners. In reply to this learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter could not be resolved due to the rigid attitude taken by the respondent no.2. But there is no explanation as to why the articles and ornaments which were admittedly with the petitioners were not given to the respondent no.2. (7) In the above circumstances, this court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the charge sheet filed against the petitioners by the Investigating Officer. 5 (9) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed. The interim order dated 08.12.2005, passed by this court is hereby vacated. The trial court may proceed further with the trial. (Stay Vacation Application No. 551 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.12.8.2010 N.P