IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 452 OF 2011 Veenita Bhandari ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent. Present:- Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) 1. Heard. 2. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / VI Fast Track Court, Dehradun, whereby the order of the Judicial Magistrate- I, Dehradun dated 3.12.2009 has been affirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was moved by the writ petitioner seeking to get lodged a first information report relating to offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against her husband Kuldeep Singh. The learned Magistrate before passing the order sought report from the Mahila Help Line of the Police and considering the same, declined the request made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to get registered the case. The Magistrate has given detailed reasons for coming to prima facie conclusion that it was not the case of harassment or demand of dowry. 4. The petitioner appears to have challenged the said order by filing a Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2010 before Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.8.2010, affirming the order passed by the Magistrate after hearing the revisionist. 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate could not have referred the matter to Mahila Help Line on an application under Section 156(3). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and after going through the impugned orders, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate declining to get the case registered by Police. The orders under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are not required to be passed in a routine matter to get the cases registered, against any one in respect of any offence. The Magistrate has rightly satisfied himself before disposing of the application. 7. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed summarily, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the criminal complaint, if any, filed by the petitioner. (Stay Application No. 5698 of 2011 also stands disposed of) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.06.2011 Rathour