IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 349 of 2011 1. Vipin Kumar S/o Late Indrajeet Kashyap 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Indrajeet Kashyap 3. Bhupendra Singh S/o Late Indrajeet Kashyap 4. Smt Kavita W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh All R/o House No. 300, Lajpat Nagar, Nurawala Road, P.S Jodewal District Ludhiyana (Punjab) 5. Ramesh Kumar Kaushal S/o Shri Hari Ram 6. Smt. Neelam W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Kaushal Both R/o House No. 561 Jahore Singh Nagar, Mill Road Ludhiyana 7. Smt Anju W/o Sri Vinod Kaushal R/o House no. 2357 Rambagh Road Ambala Cantt, Haryana ………………..Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarkhand through Secretary Home, Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2. Smt. Rani W/o Vipin Kumar D/o Master Bhangu Singh R/o Ranipokhri, Near Punjab National bank, P.S Ranipokhri 2 District Dehradun ………….Opposite parties Shri Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A, present for the State. Shri Nagesh Aggarwal Advocate, present for the respondent no.2, Smt Rani Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 59 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Ranipokhri, District Dehradun, pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, respondent no.2 Smt. Rani got married to petitioner no.1 Vipin Kumar on 08.12.2001. Out of the wedlock one daughter was said to have been born, who is living with her mother. The First Information Report was lodged by respondent 3 no.2 Smt Rani against the petitioners on 11.11.2010, at police station Ranipokhri, alleging that after her marriage, her husband Vipin Kumar, mother in law Smt.Nirmala Devi, and brother in law Bhupendra Singh demanded ` 50,000/- as dowry, and on being unable to meet said demand she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in laws. It is also alleged by her that she was ousted from her husband's house after she was beaten by her husband, mother in law, brother in law and sister in law (DEVRANI). On 25.05.2009 relating to said incident she has further stated in the First Information Report that she got herself medically examined. She has also stated that on 08.10.2010, when she was attending the court in a case filed by her, she was again attacked. The Investigating Officer after investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners Vipin Kumar, (husband) Smt.Nirmala Devi (mother in law), Bhupendra Singh (brother in law/DEVAR) and Smt Kavita (sister in law/DEVRANI), Ramesh Kumar Kaushal (maternal uncle in law) and Smt Neelam (maternal aunt in law) and sister Anju (married sister in law) relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on which the cognizance is taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, and accused were summoned. Aggrieved by said summoning order dated 4 27.01.2011, this petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the same. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.2 is filing one after another criminal cases against her husband and his relatives which is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is pointed out that the husband is facing the cases filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C, and the trial in respect of offence punishable under section 406 of I.P.C., and one filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Petitioner no.2 Nirmala Devi (mother in law) is also facing trial in the above mentioned last two cases. (5) On the other hand, respondent no.2 Smt Rani, who is present in person in the court, and her counsel Shri Nagesh Aggarwal argued that the respondent no.2 is being subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband and in laws. (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that there is sufficient material on record suggesting that the respondent no.2 has falsely implicated petitioner no.5 Ramesh Kumar Kaushal (maternal uncle in law), petitioner no.6 Smt. 5 Neelam (maternal aunt in law), and petitioner no.7 Smt Anju (married sister in law). The petitioner no.5 and petitioner no.6 live in Jahore Singh Nagar, and petitioner no.7 lives in Amballa Cantt. Other petitioners namely Vipin Kumar (husband), Smt. Nirmala Devi (mother in law), petitioner no.3 Bhupendra Singh (brother in law) and petitioner no.4 Kavita (sister in law/ DEVRANI), they lived together in Lajpat Nagar. No specific incident of cruelty is mentioned as against another petitioners no. 5, 6 and 7. To the extent of trial of these three, it appears to be abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent no.2 Smt Rani. (7) However, as far as the other petitioners namely Vipin Kumar, Nirmala Devi, Bhupendra Singh and Kavita are concerned though learned counsel for the petitioners have pleaded their innocence, but this court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C., can not decide the disputed question of fact. Such pleas can be examined by the trial court after recording the evidence. (8) For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.,is partly allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 59 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of 6 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Ranipokhri, District Dehradun, pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, are hereby quashed, so far as the same relate to the petitioner no.5 Ramesh Kumar Kaushal, petitioner no.6 Smt. Neelam and petitioner no.7 Anju . However, the trial in respect of other petitioners namely Vipin Kumar, Nirmala Devi, Bhupendra Singh and Kavita is not interfered with. It is further observed if these four petitioners are not on bail, and surrender before court concerned, their bail application shall be heard without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.17.11.2011 N.P