IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 691 Of 2005 1. Smt Kaushal D/o Shri Rajpal @ Pallu W/o Shri Satish Kumar, R/o Village Chanchak, P.S Biharigarh, Dist- Saharanpur present address- R/o Village Imlikhera, P.S Bhagwanpur, Dist- Haridwar 2. Smt Pinky, D/o Shri Rajpal W/o Shri Salekh Chand, R/o Village Chanchak, P.S Biharigarh, Dist- Saharanpur present address- R/o Village Rogla P.S. Bheat, Dist- Saharanpur 3. Vijay Pal, S/o Shri Banarasi 4. Smt Usha, W/o Shri Vijaypal Both R/o Village Bhoolni P.S. Bheat, Dist- Saharanpur ………………..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Civil Judge (J.D.) Roorkee. 3. Telu Ram, S/o Shri Chattar Singh, R/o Village Phakkarhedi, P.S. Jhabreda, District – Haridwar. …..…………Respondents Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri T.C.Aggarwal, A.G.A with Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 144 of 2005 State vs. Sanjay and other, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 504, I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. None present on behalf of the respondent no.3 (complainant) even after being sufficiently served with the notice. However a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant which is on record. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant's sister Babita got married to Sanjay (brother of the petitioner no.1 and 2). It is alleged by the complainant in F.I.R. that Sanjay, his brother Dinesh and Manoj, his sisters Kaushal 3 and Pinky, mother in law Shayamo , father in law Rajpal and Sanjay's friend Vijaypal and his wife Usha demanded fridge and motor cycle in dowry from Babita and subjected her to cruelty. On the basis of said report lodged by respondent no.3, crime no. 37 of 2005 was registered in respect of offence punishable under section 498A, 504 I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, at police station Jhabreda, district Haridwar. After investigation charegesheet (ExA-4) appears to have been filed by the Investigating Officer before the trial court on which summoning order dated 12th of August 2005 was passed by the trial court. Hence this petition. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is grave abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioners in the dowry harassment case. It is pointed out that petitioner no.1 Smt Kaushal and petitioner no.2 Smt Pinky are married sisters of husband of the complainant's sister. They live separately from their brother Sanjay, when their husbands. It is also pointed out that petitioner no.3 Vijay pal is admittedly a friend of 4 Sanjay and Smt Usha (petitioner no.4) is wife of petitioner no.3. They also live separately, and not members of family or relative of Sanjay. In support of the above contention copies of the ration cards are filed as annexure-2 to the petition showing that petitioner no.1 and her husband are residents of Imlikhera. It is also pleaded that petitioner no.2 Smt Pinky and her husband Salekh Chand are residents of Bheat, district Saharanpur. It is no where stated by any one that petitioner no. 3 Vijay Pal, who is friend of Sanjay lives with the husband of the complainant's sister. The averment made in the affidavit that petitioner no.3 Vijay Pal and his wife Smt Usha are residents of Bhoolni are not controverted by the respondents. (5) Having heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, affidavit and counter affidavit, this court finds it is a case of grave abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant whereby he has implicated the petitioners Smt Kaushal, Smt Pinky, VijayPal and Usha in the case of dowry harassment filed against husband, brother in law, mother in law and father in law of 5 sister of the complainant. Its ridiculous to allege that the husband's friend and his wife demanded dowry from the complainant's sister. Section 498A of I.P.C only covers the husband and relatives of the husband in connection with the offence punishable under section. From no stretch of imagination petitioner no.3 Vijay Pal (friend of the husband of complainant's sister), and his wife petitioner no.4 Smt Usha, can be termed to be relatives of the husband of complainant's sister. Also, married sister's in law who live separately from husband of the complainant's sister appear to have been, falsely implicated in the present case. There is no specific role assigned to them. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 Teluram nothing has been stated as to what was the role of the petitioners in the offence alleged in the F.I.R. (6) In the above circumstance, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case no. 144 of 2005 State vs. Sanjay and others, relating to offences punishable under 6 section 498A, 504, I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, are hereby quashed, so far as the same relate to the petitioners namely Smt Kaushal, Smt Pinky , Shri Vijay Pal and Smt Usha. The trial court may proceed against the other accused. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.20.8.2010 N.P