IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc.Application (C482) No. 572 of 2011 1- Rabiya Begum W/o Late Badrul Hasain R/o Miyan Bazar, Purvi, Near City Convent School, Gorakhpur District Gorakhpur. 2- Khurshed Anwar S/o Late Badrul Hasain R/o Miyan Bazar, Purvi, Near City Convent School, Gorakhpur District Gorakhpur. ….…..Petitioners Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Home Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2- Senior Superintendent of Police Haridwar, District Haridwar. 3- S.H.O. Police Station Ranipur Sadar, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 4- Riyaz Ahmad S/o Late Sri Niyaz Ahmad R/o 153 type 3 sector 5 B BHEL, Ranipur Haridwar, District Haridwar. ……Respondents Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.S.Rawal, Advocate, present for the petitioners/applicants. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent No.4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application No. 1115 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing restoration application MCRC No. 697 of 2011. Heard and perused the affidavit. 2 Delay condonation application No. 1115 of 2011, is allowed. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned. Also heard on restoration application MCRC No. 697 of 2011, and perused the affidavit. The restoration application No. 697 of 2011, is allowed on the condition that the petition restored shall be heard on merits today. (Reference - Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & Another 2007 AIR SCW 1971) The criminal misc. application (C482 ) No. 572 of 2011, stands restored. Heard on restored petition. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of proceedings of criminal case no. 990 of 2010, State Vs. Rabiya Begum and others relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that vague allegations have been made in the First Information Report regarding cruelty and demand of dowry. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant drew attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 and pleaded that respondent No.4 was continuously subjected to harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. In the above circumstances, it appears that there are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be 3 examined by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is desirable for the trial court to examine such issues after recording the evidence. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case pending in the trial court, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners Rabiya Begum and Khurshed Anwar, surrender before the court concerned their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.09.2011 JM