IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 609/2009 Ataullah Quraishi …….Petitioner Versus Sate of Uttarakhand & Anr. …….Respondents December 24, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of case No. 2369/2009, State v. Ataullah Quraishi & Ors, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar as well as the summoning order dated 9.7.2009 passed by that court. Facts, in brief, are that the marriage of respondent no. 2 Shazia Hasan was solemnized with Saif Ahmad, son of the petitioner Ataullah Quraishi on 8.6.2007 as per Muslim rituals against the mahar of Rs. 51000/-. A large number of gifts including jewellery and an Alto car were given as dowry in the marriage. Petitioner and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry. They demanded rupees ten lakhs and a luxury car. When their demand were not met, they started harassing the respondent no. 2, who was a working girl and had to resign lateron because of the atrocities committed by the petitioner and his family members. Her salary was even used to be grabbed by her husband, who was an alcoholic and who used to physically and mentally torture her at the instance of his family members. Lateron her husband shifted to Banglore but she was not taken there and was told that unless their demand of dowry would not be fulfilled, she cannot live there and shall be given divorce. She was being beaten and she had to undergo long medical treatment. She was continuously getting the threatening from the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, she came back to her maternal house. On 1.1.2009 at about 8.30 pm, the petitioner and his family members came at the house of respondent no. 2 and repeated their demand of dowry and threatened that if the same shall not be fulfilled, respondent no. 2 shall be given divorce and they would make her life hell. When she demanded her stridhan, then she was threatened that she would be falsely implicated in some legal cases. Thereafter she made an application dated 14.2.2009 to Mahila Help Line, Kotwali Roorkee. Thereafter an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his family members on the recommendations of Mahila Help Line, Roorkee and on the orders of S.P. Dehat, Roorkee. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed an application u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee because of which her in-laws became very angry. On 26.5.2009 at 9 pm, when the respondent no. 2 and her father were returning from the Civil Line Market and as soon as they reached near the Administrative Building, petitioner along with two other persons came across and started abusing them. When they requested not to hurl abuses, then the accompanying persons caught hold of her father and petitioner started beating the respondent no. 2 badly with a danda. When they raised the alarm, many persons including Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Pushkar Dev and Shahjad gathered at the place of occurrence and rescued the respondent no. 2 and her father. The petitioner left the place holding out a threat that if the application u/s 156(3) CrPC and FIR lodged by the Mahila Help Line shall not be withdrawn, they would not leave them alive. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 immediately approached the Mahila Help Line and narrated the entire incident. She was medically 2 examined at Civil Hospital, Roorkee. Thereafter she lodged the FIR with the aforesaid averments against the petitioner, her husband Saif Ahmad, mother-in-law Smt. Rana Praveen and brother-in-law (Jeth) Asif Ahmad. Thereafter statements of the respondent no. 2/complainant, her father Ziaul Hassan, her mother Smt. Raisa Begum were recorded u/s 161 CrPC, wherein they have supported the prosecution version. S.I. Smt. Sadhna Tyagi, In-charge, Women Help Line Cell, Roorkee in her statement u/s 161 CrPC has also supported the averments made by the respondent no. 2. Statements of independent witnesses, viz, Sahzad Alam Faruqi and Pushkar Dev relating to the incident of 26.5.2009 were also recorded u/s 161 CrPC, wherein they have corroborated the incident of 26.5.2009. Statements of independent witnesses, viz, Murtaza Hasan, Vipin Kumar & Jogendra Kumar relating to the incident of 1.1.2009 were also recorded, wherein they have supported the prosecution version. Both the State/respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have filed detailed counter affidavit, wherein the averments made in the petition filed by the petitioner have been categorically denied. Copies of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC have also been annexed with their respective affidavits along with the medical evidence as well as some other relevant papers. No rejoinder affidavit could be filed on behalf of the petitioner despite the opportunity being given. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; perusal of the statements made u/s 161 CrPC and other papers available on record, in view of the fact that the I.O., after duly investigating into the matter, has filed the chargesheet against the petitioner and other co- accused, which inspires confidence and on the basis of which the impugned summoning order dated 9.7.2009 has been passed against the petitioner, I am of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections is made out and, therefore, the proceedings of case No. 3 2369/2009, State v. Ataullah Quraishi & Ors, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar and the summoning order dated 9.7.2009 passed by that court warrant no interference by this Court. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide, but the plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 25.8.2009 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.12.2009 PRABODH 4