IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 948 of 2005 Indu Sharma …Applicant/Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner Smt. Indu Sharma against the cognizance order dated 17.9.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, in Complaint Case No. 894 of 2005, Smt. Seema Sharma versus Arvind Kumar Sharma and others, under Sections 323, 498A and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner and others before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun, under Sections 147, 323, 498A, 506(2) I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant/respondent no. 2 and other witnesses and passed the cognizance order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court. 3- Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for 2 respondent no. 1, Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 4- The main crux of this case is that petitioner Smt. Indu Sharma is daughter-in-law of maternal father-in-law of respondent no. 2-Smt. Seema Sharma and she has been living separately in her matrimonial home for the last 35 years. She has no concern with the family members as well as matrimonial home of respondent no. 2. 5- No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 to rebut this aspect of the matter, though Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate appears for respondent no. 2. 6- Thus, it is apparent from the face of the record that petitioner Smt. Indu Sharma, who is in distant relation of respondent no. 2, has in fact no matrimonial relation or concern with the family of respondent no. 2 and her husband Arvind Kumar Sharma. When the petitioner has been living separately with her husband for the last 35 years, then it does not repeal to reason as to why she will unnecessarily interfere with the matrimonial life of respondent no. 2. The intention of respondent no. 2 appears to be that she has tried to implicate the entire family members as well as the distant relations of her husband-Arvind Kumar Sharma. I think, under these circumstances, it will not serve any purpose to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-Indu Sharma, who is distantly related with respondent no. 2 and her husband. 3 7- For the reasons stated above, criminal proceedings for the offence under Sections 323, 498A and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner Smt. Indu Sharma, in Complaint Case No. 894 of 2005, Smt. Seema Sharma versus Arvind Kumar Sharma and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, is liable to be quashed. 8- Accordingly petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings for the offence under Sections 323, 498A and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner Smt. Indu Sharma, in Complaint Case No. 894 of 2005, Smt. Seema Sharma versus Arvind Kumar Sharma and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, is hereby quashed. 29-06-2010 SP (B.C. Kandpal, J.)