IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 407 of 2007 1. Ramesh Singh Taragi S/o Shri Narayan Singh Taragi 2. Narayan Singh Taragi S/o late Hayat Singh 3. Smt. Govindi Devi W/o Shri Narayan Singh Taragi All R/o Village Tarag, P.O. Pallagaon (Barakot) Police Station Lohaghat, District Champawat. 4. Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Annu Bohara R/o Village Dhoonaghat Police Station Lohaghat, District Champawat. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Radha Taragi (Rekha Taragi) W/o Shri Ramesh Singh Taragi D/o Shri Madan Mohan Singh Taragi R/o House No. 72, Awas Vikas Colony, Khatima, P.S. Khatima, District U.S. Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent State. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 2 hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the charge sheet and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 907 of 2007; State Vs. Ramesh Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3) It is pleaded by the petitioners in the petition that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Singh Taragi was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 01.05.2001. It has been stated that the respondent No. 2 Radha Taragi (complainant), wife of petitioner No. 1, is a quarrelsome lady. It is further stated that after she left on 07.04.2003, for her parental house to appear in B.A. examination, she did not return back to the house of petitioner No. 1. In 2005, the petitioner No. 1 made an effort to bring back his wife to his home, but she refused to come back. It appears that thereafter the respondent No. 2 claimed maintenance and she started getting Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance from the salary of petitioner No. 1. It is pleaded that in January 2007, a false first information report was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and after investigation the impugned charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer. Lastly, it is pleaded that the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 are abuse of process of law as the petitioner No. 1 had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No. 2. 3 4) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that after respondent No. 2 put in appearance in the case of restoration of conjugal rights, the petitioner No. 1 got the same dismissed. Not only this, petitioner No. 1 stopped the payment of maintenance thereafter. It is also contended that petitioner No. 1 has started living with another woman. Apart from this, the allegations relating to the demand of dowry and harassment are reiterated in the counter affidavit. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the factual disputes have been raised by the petitioners which cannot be decided by this Court on the basis of half baked evidence. The questions of fact raised by the petitioners can be examined by the trial court after recording the evidence. 6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 08.10.2007, passed by this Court, stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 11, 2010. H. Negi