IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.1138 of 2011 Mukesh Kumar Arora S/o Sri Krisna Lal Arora R/o Ward no.4, Gadarpur, P.S. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar ….…..Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Uttarakhand Sashan, Dehradun 2. Smt. Shilpi W/o Mukesh Kumar Arora D/o Rajendra Gumber R/o Ward no.4, Gadarpur, P.S. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar ……Respondents Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioner Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings of criminal case no.249 of 2011 State vs. Mukesh Kumar Arora, relating to offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and one punishable under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Gadarpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned charge sheet has been 2 filed against the petitioner only because the petitioner is husband of the complainant. It is further submitted that as per the information received under Right To Information Act, 2005, no medical of the respondent no.2 was conducted in the Community Health Centre, Bajpur on 20.12.2008. It is also pleaded that the criminal case in question is counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that disputed questions of fact have been raised in this petition, which cannot be examined by this Court on the basis of half-baked evidence before it. It is for the trial court to examine such pleas after recording statements of witnesses in the case. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15.12 11 .20 Rajni