IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 671 of 2005 1. Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Sri Janardhan Swaroop Gupta R/o House No. 536, Sector 10A Gurgaon, Haryana. 2. Janardhan Swaroop Gupta S/o Late C.B. Gupta R/o House No. 536, Sector 10 A Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. Smt. Geeta Gupta W/o Sri Janardhan Swaroop Gupta R/o House No. 536, Sector 10 A Gurgaon, Haryana. ….....Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police Udham Singh Nagar. 3. S.H.O. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Jitendra Mohan Gupta S/o Sri Bal Mukund Gupta Mohalla Singhan, P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Smt. Anjali Gupta D/o Jitendra Mohan Gupta R/o Mohalla Singhan, P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 6. Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. .……….Respondents. ALONGWITH Criminal Misc. App. No. 669 of 2005 1. Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Sri Janardhan Swaroop Gupta R/o House No. 536, Sector 10A Gurgaon, Haryana. 2. Janardhan Swaroop Gupta S/o Late C.B. Gupta R/o House No. 536, Sector 10 A Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. Smt. Geeta Gupta W/o Sri Janardhan Swaroop Gupta 2 R/o House No. 536, Sector 10 A Gurgaon, Haryana. 4. Pavan Gupta S/o Sri Janardhan Swaroop Gupta R/o House No. 536, Sector 10 A Gurgaon, Haryana. ….....Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police Udham Singh Nagar. 3. S.H.O. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Jitendra Mohan Gupta S/o Sri Bal Mukund Gupta Mohalla Singhan, P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Smt. Anjali Gupta D/o Jitendra Mohan Gupta R/o Mohalla Singhan, P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 6. Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. .……….Respondents. Shri S.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for respondents No. 1,2,3 and 6. Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of these two petitions, petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case, which have arisen out of charge sheet No. 46 of 2005 (crime No. 1685 of 2004) relating to offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. and charge sheet No. 196 of 2005 (crime No. 715 of 2003), relating to offences punishable under sections 498 A, 323 I.P.C and one punishable under Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, both pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated due to matrimonial discord between petitioner No. 1-Deepak Kumar Gupta and his wife Anjali Gupta (respondent No. 5). It is further contended that the prosecution of the petitioners in the aforesaid cases is illegal and against the procedure established by law. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 in which it is stated that respondent No. 5 was harassed and treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is further stated that her Stridhan was not returned by the petitioners, which petitioners allegedly misappropriated. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, and learned brief holder for the State, this Court is of the view that in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with half baked evidence before it, it cannot be decided whether the petitioners are innocent or not. This Court is of the view that it is for the trial court to see after recording prosecution evidence whether the petitioners are innocent or not. Petitioners failed to show me that how the impugned prosecution can be said to be illegal or against the procedure established by law. 4 7. After going through the annexures filed with the affidavits and counter affidavits of the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the charge sheets sought to be quashed in these petitions. Therefore, both the petitions moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners- Deepak Kumar Gupta, Janardhan Swaroop Gupta, Smt. Geeta Gupta and Pavan Gupta, are arrested or surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay in the aforesaid cases arising out of charge sheet No. 46 of 2005 and charge sheet No. 196 of 2005. Interim order dated 19.11.2005, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 06.05.2008 Sweta