IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 506 of 2004 1. Akhlak S/o Mohd. Yaqub R/o Village Tanda Banhera, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar. 2. Smt. Farzana W/o Shri Vakil Ahmad R/o Mohalla quilla, Manglaur P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar Permanent Address Sival Khas, Ward No. 6, Meerut, Distt. Meerut. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / State of Uttarakhand 2. J.M. (Ist Class), Roorkee. 3. Smt. Zareena W/o late Akbar R/o Banda Road Imran Ki Gali, Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali (R) District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 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. 1696 of 2004; State Vs. Usman and others, relating to offences punishable 2 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kotwali, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that Gulshan Ara, daughter of respondent No. 3 got married to Mohd. Usman on 2nd of May 2004, in Village Tanda Banhera, within the limits of police station Manglaur, District Haridwar. It is alleged by respondent No. 3 in the first information report that after the marriage the husband and other relatives, including the petitioners, demanded Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. The respondent No. 3 could not arrange Rs. 29,000/- due to which her daughter was subjected to cruelty and beaten. The police registered Crime No. 202 of 2004, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against Mohd. Usman (husband), Akhlak (uncle-in-law), Irfan (father-in-law), Farzana (aunt-in- law) and Yaqub (grandfather-in-law). After investigation, charge sheet appears to have been filed against all the five in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one 3 punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 Akhlak is uncle-in-law, and petitioner No. 2 Smt. Farzana is aunt-in-law / BUA of the daughter of respondent No. 3. It is pleaded that due to the matrimonial discord between Gulshan Ara, daughter of respondent No. 3 and her husband Mohd. Usman, the entire family of Mohd. Usman has been implicated. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the copies of the ration cards, which are annexed as Annexures No. 4 and 5 to the affidavit filed with the petition. Said two annexures are copies of the ration cards of the petitioners. Annexure –5 shows that petitioner No. 2 Smt. Farzana lives in Sival Khas, Ward No. 6 in Meerut with her husband. Annexure –4 to the petition, which is copy of ration card of petitioner No. 1 Akhlak shows that though he lives in Tanda Banhera but separately with his family, which includes his wife and two children. In the circumstances, it is argued that it is abuse of process of law on the part of respondent No. 3 to drag the petitioners in the criminal litigation. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits and other papers on record, I am satisfied that petitioners, namely Akhlak and Smt. Farzana live separately from Gulshan Ara (daughter of the complainant) and her 4 husband Mohd. Usman. Their implication in the criminal case appears to be abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant. No specific role has been assigned to the two who were not living in the house of Mohd. Usman. 6) In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to the extent the impugned criminal case relates to the present two petitioners. 7) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1696 of 2004; State Vs. Usman and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, police station Kotwali, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, are quashed to the extent the case relates to the present petitioners, namely Akhlak and Smt. Farzana. However, it is clarified that the prosecution in respect of other accused is not interfered with. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 03, 2010. H. Negi