IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 649 of 2007 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Achint Roy and others. ……….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri M.K. Roy, Advocate for the applicants. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Sri Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the criminal complaint case no. 2739 of 2007 titled as “Geeta Roy Vs. Achint Roy and others”, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. In the said complaint, order of cognizance was passed on dated 25.07.2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar asking the applicants to stand trial for the offence under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Background facts, in short, are that Geeta Roy was espoused with Achint Roy on dated 13.12.1999, as per Hindu Rituals. Her father offered dowry and Stridhan to the best of his capability but the same could not satisfy the applicants. They commenced voracious attitude towards Geeta Roy, with a demand of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents through her. She was blessed with two sons, out of this conjugal wedlock, namely Monu Roy and Suraj Roy and nurtured every hope for the change of attitude of the applicants but in vain. Rather Achint 2 Roy (husband), Anil Roy (father-in-law), Anita Roy (step mother-in-law) and Alok Roy (younger brother-in-law) became more atrocious and tyrant towards her, demanding wherewithal, as stated above. On 13.03.2007, all these applicants compelled her to leave matrimonial house and so in extremely sad state of affairs, she took retreat of her parents’ house at Rudrapur. Just after, a little more than two months, i.e. on 20.05.2007, all these applicants came to the native house of Geeta Roy with same old demand of Rs. 50,000/-, informing her that since their demand could not be fulfilled, so Achint Roy has now wedded with another lady Kamla and if she wants to live with them then her father will have to satisfy the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. When she refused to meet the said demand, all the accused persons started to assault her. Noticing the commotion, neighbour Uttam and few others came to her rescue, then accused persons took to their heels. She strived to lodge First Information Report in Police Station Rudrapur on 22.05.2007 but the same could not be lodged, so she filed this complaint on 04.07.2007. She got her two witnesses Anand Mohan Dev and Anand Pandey examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, having gone through the statements of complainant as well as witnesses named above, passed the impugned order of cognizance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards the observation of Woman Help Line on dated 29.06.2007, which discloses the failure of endeavour for reconciliation between the parties due to refusal of Geeta Roy to accompany her husband while latter was ready to take her from the spot. It has also been argued on behalf of the applicants that alleged incident of assault / beating is a farce due to lack of any injury report. On the other hand, it has 3 been argued by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 (Geeta Roy) that since Achint Roy has now been in extra marital relations with another woman, so it was natural on the part of Geeta Roy to refuse to accompany him. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the facts as alleged in the complaint, the complicity of the applicant nos. 2 to 4 in the alleged incidents dated 13.03.2007 and 20.05.2007 do not inspire confidence and in the opinion of this Court, it will be abuse of process of law, if these applicants namely Anil Roy (father-in-law), Anita Roy (step mother-in-law) and Alok Roy (younger brother-in-law) are left to face rigmarole trial before the court below, on the basis of fickle allegations, which prima facie, do not inspire confidence. 5. Having a panoptic view on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly allowable. The petition of Anil Roy (father-in-law), Anita Roy (step mother-in- law) and Alok Roy (younger brother-in-law) is hereby allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 25.07.2007 and criminal complaint case no. 2739 of 2007 against them are hereby quashed. While petition of Achint Roy is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 07.09.2007 qua Achint Roy granted by this Court is hereby vacated. Let the information be sent to the court below to proceed ahead in the matter. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.12.2011 SKS 4