IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No.40 of 2010 1. Lal Singh, S/o Sukwa 2. Smt. Roshan W/o Lal Singh 3. Krishan Pal Singh S/o Lal Singh All R/o Village Preetampur P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar 4. Jasmat, S/o Sukur R/o Village Puranpur P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar ………..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Shri Chandra Bhan S/o Nihal Singh R/o Sarai, P.S. Jwalapur District Haridwar ....……Respondents Shri Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the 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 2 short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 6296 of 2009, State vs. Krishan Pal, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant (respondent no. 2) is a retired employee from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. , Ranipur, Haridwar. His daughter Sushila got married to Krishan Pal (petitioner no. 3) on 05.12.2007. It is alleged by respondent no. 2 in application moved under 156 (3) Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR was lodged that on 22.02.2009, the accused persons hurled abuses at the complainant, and his family members, and they were assaulted. It is also pleaded by the complainant that his daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioners Lal Singh, Smt. Roshan, Krishan Pal, and Jasmat relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the criminal complaint case due to matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 3 Krishan Pal and his wife Sushila (daughter of respondent no. 2). It is also pointed out that petitioner no. 1 Lal Singh is father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 Smt. Roshan is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 Krishan Pal is husband of Sushila (daughter of respondent no. 2). It is contended that even petitioner no. 4 Jasmat who is ''SAMDHI'' (father of son-in-law of the petitioner no. 1) is not spared. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 , and learned counsel for the State submitted that after completion of investigation and collecting the evidence, charge sheet is filed. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that as far as petitioner no. 1 Lal Singh, petitioner no. 2 Smt. Roshan, and petitioner no. 3 Krishan Pal are concerned, their plea of innocence, raised by them, may be examined by the trial court after recording evidence. It is not desirable on the part of this Court 4 to examine the factual aspects of the matter on the basis of the half baked evidence before it. 7. However, as far as implication of petitioner no. 4 Jasmat is concerned, who is 'SAMDHI' (father of the son-in-law of the petitioner no. 1) is concerned, it appears that it is a case of abuse of process of law. And, to that extent the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. Therefore, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is partly allowed. The criminal proceedings as against Jasmat, in criminal case no. 6296 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 498 IPC, are hereby quashed. However, the trial may proceed further in respect of other accused namely Lal Singh, Smt. Roshan and Krishan Pal. To that extent petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., shall stand dismissed. It is observed that if the aforesaid three petitioners Lal Singh, Smt. Roshan and Krishan Pal surrender before the court concerned their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 03.08.2011