IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 484 of 2004 1. Dinesh Kandwal S/o Sri Ram Vilas Kandwal 2. Rakesh Kandwal S/o Sri Ram Vilas Kandwal 3. Vinod Kandwal alias Guddu or Divakar Kandwal S/o Sri Ram Vilas Kandwal 4. Jagdamba Kandwal S/o Sri Mukand Ram 5. Smt. Sarita D/o Sri Ram Vilas Kandwal All R/o Village Bhaid Gaun Tehsil –Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Km. Prabha D/o Sri Ghananand Kharkwal R/o Village Aldava, Patti Sila (II) Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. ……….Respondents. Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for State. Shri Raman Kumar Sah, Advocate for complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 394 of 2004, Prabha Vs. Dinesh Kandwal and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, filed a criminal complaint before the trial court on 23.07.2004, stating that her marriage was settled with the petitioner No. 1-Dinesh Kandwal on 02.03.2004. With the consent of both the parties and their parents, the marriage was to be solemnised on 26.06.2004. It is admitted in the criminal complaint itself that both the sides got printed marriage invitation cards and distributed the same. It is alleged by the complainant (respondent No. 2) in her criminal complaint that on 25.06.2004, the petitioner/accused came to the house of complainant and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a scooter as dowry. On non fulfilment of demand of dowry, BARAAT (marriage party) failed to turn up on the next date i.e. date fixed for marriage. It is stated that when no action was taken by Patwari on the report made to him the criminal complaint in question is filed. It appears that Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, after recording evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioners in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage of respondent No. 2 was settled 3 with petitioner No. 1 as alleged in the complaint. It is also admitted that both the parties agreed to solemnise the marriage on 26.06.2004. It is also admitted in the petition that both the parties got their marriage invitation cards printed and distributed. The dispute according to the complainant arose a day before the marriage when the demand of dowry was made. On the other hand, the petitioners have pointed out that what is apparent from the record is that the petitioner No. 1 Dinesh Kandwal, who was in service in Delhi, could not turn up by 26.06.2004, as such, marriage party could not proceed. It is stated in the petition that there is no question of demand of dowry in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to annexure-1 to the petition, which is copy of the report of the Patwari made on the complaint made by the father of the respondent No. 2. Patwari has reported that he visited the villages and made necessary enquiries from all concerned. Patwari in his report, has clearly stated that Dinesh Kandwal though he proceeded from Delhi in the night on 25.06.2004, did not reach the village in time. On being enquired, he told Patwari that he was made to drink some lassi at a dhaba, where after he lost his consciousness. The villagers also confirmed the fact that on making enquiries on phone from Delhi, the parents of the boy were told that boy had already left Delhi on 25.06.2004. It is also reported by the Patwari of the area that after the boy came and the time had already been lost, they settled their dispute by 4 agreeing to get respondent No. 2 married to petitioner No. 1 on some future date. But thereafter this criminal complaint was filed on 23.07.2004, copy of which is annexed as annexure-2 to the petition in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. From the perusal of the papers on record, it is prima facie evident that Patwari did enquire into the matter as to why the marriage did not take place and found that the petitioner No. 1 could not really reach on time on the date of marriage. The fact relating to compromise after expiry of date of marriage is also corroborated from annexure-5 to the petition. 6. In the above circumstances, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, criminal case initiated by respondent No. 2, appears to be abuse of process of law and proceedings of said criminal case are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed. Criminal case No. 394 of 2004, Prabha Vs. Dinesh Kandwal and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:10.03.2010 Sweta 5