IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 121 of 2006 1. Mohd. Jamil S/o Barkat Ali 2. Smt. Vakila W/o Shri Mohd. Jamil Both R/o Ajabpur Khurd, Gandhi Gram, Khala Basti, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Rehmati W/o Sri Salim D/o Shri Hanif R/o Bhorowala, Police Station Clement town, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the respondent No. 1 / State. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 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 Case No. 168 of 2006; State Vs. Mohd. Salim and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., police station Clement Town, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is an abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings after 20 years of marriage. It is further pleaded that all the family members have been roped in the case due to the matrimonial discord between respondent No. 2 and her husband Salim. 4) The impugned order dated 18.01.2006 shows cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate in respect of offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 498-A of I.P.C. after the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the three accused, namely Salim (husband), Jamil (brother-in-law) and Smt. Vakila (sister-in-law). Copy of the first information report shows that the report was lodged against seven members of the family. However, on investigation, charge sheet is filed only against three members of the family. As far as the averment made in the petition that the marriage is 20 years old is concerned, it is true that it is hard to believe that after 20 years of marriage, dowry would be demanded, as alleged in the first information report. However, there is no charge sheet filed in respect of offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 498-A of I.P.C. covers even those cases of cruelty in which there was no demand of dowry. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the petitioners are innocent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that whether the petitioners are innocent or not, and whether the allegations made by the complainant relating to ‘MAAR PEET’ and cruelty are correct or not, can be examined by the trial court after recording the statement of the witnesses. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to form any opinion on the basis of incomplete evidence before it. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interference with the trial. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners are not on bail, and surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Interim order dated 22.02.2006, passed by this Court, stands automatically vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 07, 2010. H. Negi