IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln. (C-482) No. 635 of 2005 1. Gopal Dass S/o late Sri Ram Prashad 2. Km. Sanyogita D/o Sri Gopal Dass 3. Ravi Kumar S/o Sri Gopal Dass All R/o N / 7 /139, Yaseen Road, Back Side Annam Cinema, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar (Punjab). 4. Smt. Swarna D/o Sri Gopal Dass W/o Sri Deshraj R/o Rajban Bazar, Near Lal Bahadur Shastri School, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Meerut, District Meerut (U.P.). ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Sri Prem Chand S/o Hira Lal R/o Loko Bazar, Luxer, P.S. Luxer, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, Addl. Govt. Advocatte, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 227 of 2 2005, Prem Chand Vs. Raj Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Laksar, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Laksar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the papers on record. No one turned up on behalf of the complainant, even after sufficiently served, nor any counter affidavit is filed. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 / complainant filed a criminal complaint before the trial court stating that his sister Poonam got married to Raj Kumar on 22.04.2004, in Amristar (Punjab). It is alleged by the complainant that on 20th May 2004, his sister came back to his house. Thereafter, on 22.05.2005, accused Raj Kumar (husband) and the petitioners, namely Gopal Dass, Km. Sanyogita, Ravi Kumar and Smt. Swarna came to the house of the complainant, and demanded dowry. On being shown inability to pay the dowry, the petitioners and accused Raj Kumar threatened the complainant. The Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, and that of the witnesses Poonam, Dulari and Rajeev Goel under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the accused 3 (including the petitioners) to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, this petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioners due to the matrimonial dispute between Poonam (sister of the complainant) and her husband Raj Kumar. It is further submitted that the petitioners live separately from Raj Kumar (husband of the sister of the complainant). Said fact pleaded in Para 6 of the affidavit has not been controverted by filing the counter affidavit. It is also pointed out that Raj Kumar has filed a Petition No. 47 of 2005, for getting dissolved the marriage with Poonam, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as she was alleged to be of unsound mind. It is contended that the present criminal complaint filed by Poonam’s brother is nothing but counterblast to the petition filed by Raj Kumar. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, and after going through the papers on record, this court is of the view that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioners in the impugned criminal proceedings. 4 6) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Proceedings as against petitioners, namely Gopal Dass, Km. Sanyogita, Ravi Kumar and Smt. Swarna are hereby quashed. However, the trial court may proceed as against accused Raj Kumar (husband of the sister of the complainant / respondent No. 2). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 03, 2010. H. Negi 5