IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C482 No. 835 of 2007 Ishpal Singh ………………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ………Respondents. Present : Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Misc. Application, the challenge is to the order of cognizance-dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Criminal Complaint Case No. 989 of 2007 titled as Smt. Karuna Vs. Ishpal Singh. The said complaint was filed for the offence of Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC coupled with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein the order of cognizance has been passed. It is pertinent to mention that private respondent no.2 Smt. Karuna does not turn up despite of sufficient personal service, so this Court has given hearing to the learned AGA as well as to the learned counsel of the petitioner. The facts emerging out from the arguments submitted on either side are that Smt. Karuna took the nuptial vows with her husband Ishpal Singh way back on 23rd June, 1987. Four children were born out of the wedlock. The members of the family of the husband, who have been implicated as accused, began to advert their disappointment on the question of dowry after few years of the marriage. The parents of Smt. Karuna kept on fulfilling the demands of Shri Ishpal Singh and his family members by giving `5,000/-, `2,000/- and `10,000/- at different times, but all this could not content the accused persons. In February, 2006 in the morning, the accused persons raised the demand of dowry and when the 2 complainant Smt. Karuna expressed her inability to go to her parents to fetch the same, she was assaulted and expelled out from her matrimonial home. Since then, she is residing with her parents. The attempt to lodge an FIR went in vain, so she filed a complaint on 16.4.2007 against her husband making her mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law and two sisters-in-law as the accused persons. Learned Magistrate, having recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of her brother Shri Rishipal and her mother Smt. Phoolmati under Section 202 CrPC, passed the impugned order of cognizance, where against this petition has been filed. The learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted the argument that Smt. Karuna is a very ill cultured, ill mannered and cantankerous lady and she keeps on fighting every time in the home making the family life a hell. Even then, when she left her matrimonial house, a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 7.6.2006 and as a counter blast, this complaint was filed. All the family members of the husband have been arraigned as the accused persons. No medical has been put forth, and above all, when she left her matrimonial house in February, 2006, this complaint was filed after one year and two months of the said incident. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the petitioner inspire confidence and this Court finds merits in the same. The impugned order of cognizance- dated 30.8.2007 deserves to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 8.11.2011 Rathour