IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 1086 of 2011 Smt Megha Upadhayay W/o Pankaj Upadhayay D/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Gautam At present R/o Old Anaj Mandi Jawalapur, P.S. Kotwali Jawalapur District Hardwar ………………..petitioner Versus 1. Raghunandan Upadhayay S/o Sita Ram Upadhayay 2. Nirdosh Kumar S/o Raghunandan Upadhayay 3. Smt Taramani W/o Raghunandan Upadhayay All respondents no.1,2,3 are R/o Mohalla Dat Mandi, Lachiram Wali Gali, Chowk Bazar Jawalapur P.S. Kotwali Jawalapur District Hardwar 4. Smt Kamna Jha W/o Ashish Jha R/o Peeth Bazar, Jawalapur P.S. Kotwali Jawalapur District Hardwar ….............Opposite parties Shri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri Abhishek Verma, Advocate, present for the respondents Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.10.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2011, whereby said court has allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 916 of 2010. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) submitted that the revisional court has erred in law in setting aside the summoning order passed against the respondents by the Magistrate. It is further pleaded that the questions of fact were required to be examined by the trial court. (4) However, on going through the papers on record, this court finds that the complainant (present petitioner) got married to Pankaj Sharma in the year 1999. It is further revealed 3 that after a period of eleven years, one fine morning the complainant filed criminal complaint, complaining the harassment due to the non fulfillment of demand of dowry, impleading the respondent, and the relatives of husband of the complainant. The revisional court has given reasons at length that it is a case of abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant (present petitioner). (5) Having gone through the impugned order, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this court finds no error of law committed by the revisional court. (6) Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.14.12.2011 N.P 4