HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Case No. 752 of 2005 1. Salim Ahmed s/o Late Sri Asgar 2. Smt. Akbari w/o Sri Akhtar Ahmed 3. Sri Phurkan s/o Sri Asgar 4. Smt. Bhoori w/o Sri Afzal Ahmad 5. Smt. Shaheena w/o Sri Afzal Ahmad.. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Khusnuda d/o Sri Mohammad Saddiq Ansari r/o 186, Landour Bazar, Mussoorie ……... Respondents Dated: 28.11.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondents. By the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal case No. 2346 of 2005, Smt. Khusnuda vs. Salim and others under sections 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mussoorie District Dehradun pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Briefly stated respondent no. 2 Khusnuda has filed a complaint under section 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants and her complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 2346/2005. The respondent no. 2 has alleged in her complaint that she was married to applicant no. 1 Salim Ahmed according to the Muslim rites at Manglore 2 on 24.11.1994. She gave birth to three daughters. It has been alleged by the complainant that soon after the marriage applicant no. 1 along with other members of his family started ill treating the complainant and demanded dowry. On the basis of the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate took cognizance against the accused applicants and issued summons to them. On the said petition, the learned Magistrate called for a report from the S.H.O. Police Station, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar and thereafter directed to register a case under section 498-A , 323 I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the summoning order the applicants have filed a criminal revision before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun which was rejected vide order dated 4.10.2005. Feeling aggrieved the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants. Since the applicants are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, it will be open for the petitioners to defend their case before the Court concerned. Since the disputed question of fact with regard to the offence punishable under sections 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, are involved, therefore, prima facie no case is made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After relying upon the judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others in AIR 1992 SC 604, in Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another 2003 SCC (Cri) 1314, the Apex Court has held as under: 3 ““9. …The grounds on which the prosecution initiated against an accused can also be quashed by the High Court in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 CrPC has been settled by a catena of decisions of this Court rendered in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (1983) 1 SCC 1 and Raj Kapoor v. State (1980) 1 SCC 43. The matter was examined in considerable detail in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and after review of practically all the earlier decisions, the Court in para 108 of the Report laid down the grounds on which power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings and basically they are: (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any ofence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection. 4 10. The principal question which, therefore, requires consideration is whether the court can go into the validity or otherwise of the investigation done by the authorities charged with the duty of investigation under the relevant statutes and whether any error or illegality committed during the course of investigation would so vitiate the charge- sheet so as to render the cognizance taken thereon bad and invalid.” So far as the instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned no interference can be made under section 482 Cr.P.C. as both the parties will be at liberty to lead the evidence in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd. and others (2003) 3 SCC 269. Since the trial has to take place for the offences under aforesaid sections, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the case arises out of the complaint, I direct the applicants to appear before the concerned Presiding Officer. The Court shall permit them to file appearance bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned for their regular appearance in the case. Subject to the observations made above, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dated: 28.11.2006 *Dhyani