Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 270 of 2005 1- Smt. Chandra Devi w/o Bahadur Singh R/o Village Danachuli, Patti-Sunder Khal, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital 2- Smt. Leela Bisht w/o Shri Govind Singh Bisht R/o C.M.T. Colony, Dehriya Tehsil Haldwani (Nainital) 3- Smt. Dhani Devi w/o Sri Teekam Singh R/o Mewari Bhawan, Rajpura Haldwani (Nainital) 4- Smt. Malti Devi w/o Sri Ganga Prasad Bisht R/o Nagarpalika Quarters, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar …Applicants Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary In the Department of Home Affairs Dehradun 2. Smt. Jaya Bisht w/o Kundan Singh Bisht, Daugther of Aan Singh Mewari, R/o 8/334, Heera Nagar, Haldwani (Nainital) … Respondents Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1. Dated: February 18, 2008 Hon’ble B. C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 17.3.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, Nainital in Criminal case No. 536 of 2003 and order dated 4.1.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2004, which are contained in Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 to the petition. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by respondent no. 2- Smt. Jaya Bisht wife of Sri Kundan Singh Bisht on 28.7.2000 against the petitioners and Kundan Singh Bisht. The police investigated the case and submitted the final report in the case on 8.3.2000. Thereafter, father of respondent no. 2 again lodged an F.I.R. with the Patti Patwari, in which Patti Patwari again submitted final report in favour of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and framed charges against the petitioners vide order dated 17.3.2004. Against this order, the petitioners preferred a revision before Sessions Judge, Nainital and the same has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 4.1.2005. The petitioners have thus challenged the aforesaid impugned orders by way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Heard Sri T. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. Petitioner no. 1 is the aunt of husband of respondent no. 2. She is issueless and lives with her nephew i.e. husband of respondent no. 2. As far as case relating to petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 is concerned, they have alleged in the petition that they are married sisters of husband of respondent no. 2 and are residing separately as well as they have no concern with the marital dispute going on in the family of respondent no. 2 and her husband. Petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 have averred this fact in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the petition. This factual aspect which has been averred by petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 in the petition is uncontroverted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Ramesh and others vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 735, has observed as follows: “6. Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Gowry Ramaswami. Looking at the allegations in the FIR and the contents of charge sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences viz. Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time i.e. between March and October 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for same days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-a or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of the informant by her sister-in-law (the appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the FIR is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash WC and she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave”. It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowry was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with Unlawful demand for property/dowry were not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowry Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed.” Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstance as well as the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the above cited case, I do not find any justification that the criminal proceedings should continue against petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4. In case, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued against petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4, the same will amount to abuse of process of court. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 17.3.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, Nainital in Criminal case No. 536 of 2003 and order dated 4.1.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2004, against petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 only. However, so far as the case of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the same stands on different footing as petitioner no. 1 is the aunt of husband of respondent no. 2 and living in the same house, hence, the matter relating to petitioner no. 1 being disputed question of fact needs scrutiny by the trial court. The case pertaining to petitioner no. 1 is dismissed being devoid of any merit. For the reasons stated above, I dismiss the petition on behalf of petitioner no. 1 and allow the same for petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J)