IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 467 of 2005 1. Rab Jeet Kaur Kohli D/o Harbhajan Singh Kohli 2. Jaspreet Singh Kohli W/o Harbhajan Singh Kohli 3. Ravindra Kaur Kohli W/o Shri Harbhajan Singh Kohli 4. Harbhajan Singh Kohli S/o Sri Diwan Singh Kohli All R/o Behind Janta Banquet Hall, Haldwani, District Nainital. ……………….. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Sandeep Singh Puri S/o Shri Kuldeep Puri R/o Canal Road, Punjabi Colony, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur (U.P.). ………… Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for the respondent No. 1/ State. None present for respondent No. 2 even after being served personally. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1907 of 2005; State Vs. Man Preet Singh and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Asstt. Government Advocate for the State, and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that Taran Deep Kaur (deceased) got married to Manpreet Singh (son of petitioner No. 4 Harbhajan Singh) on 17.04.2002, at Haldwani. She died on 25.05.2004, in Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, as is apparent from Annexure –3 (page 45 of the petition). The said Institute diagnosed that Taran Deep Kaur was suffering from SLE (Systemic Lupus Enythemaosus). Said report does not indicate that Taran Deep Kaur died unnatural death. However, since first information report was lodged by Sandeep Singh Puri (respondent No. 2 / complainant) on 25th of May 2004, after the death of his sister, postmortem examination appears to have been conducted by team of doctors on the dead body of Taran Deep Kaur on 26th of May 2004. Copy of the postmortem report, which is Annexure –7 to the petition, shows that there was no injury on the body, and the team of doctors opined that cause of death was due to shock as a result of pulmonour embolism. Before the death it appears that Taran Deep Kaur underwent medical treatment in the local hospital at Haldwani. Statement of Dr. Dinesh Chandra Pant, copy of which is Annexure –9 to the petition, shows that in the month of February 2004, she was examined in Krishna Hospital, on the complaint of pain in her hands and feet. Since, she did not respond to the treatment at that hospital she was referred on 17.05.2004 to Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences at Lucknow. Meanwhile, she was also taken to a gynecologist, Dr. manorama Bahuguna, whose statement is also annexed with Annexure –9, and who has stated that on 01.05.2004, when it was found in the ultrasound report that the foetus is dead, the same was taken out on 02.05.2004, and Taran Deep Kaur was discharged from the Mahila Hospital, Haldwani. Though the complainant alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, and consequently she had died, the Investigating Officer after collecting evidence found that the deceased had died a natural death, there was no evidence of harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Accordingly, he appears to have submitted final report on 1st of July 2004 (copy of which is Annexure – 10 to the petition). It appears that the higher authorities to the Investigating Officer, directed that the matter be re-investigated at length, as it relates to offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Again, after re-investigation, final report was submitted on 10.09.2004, copy of which is Annexure –14 to the petition, reiterating that neither the deceased has died unnatural death nor there is evidence of harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It appears that again the matter was sent back for further investigation, and finally it is reported that offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. was not made out, but the charge sheet was submitted in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on which the impugned summoning order dated 14.07.2005, was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in Criminal Case No. 1907 of 2005. 4) In the counter affidavit nothing has been disclosed which indicates that there was any demand of dowry or harassment for non-fulfillment thereof. All the three annexures filed with the counter affidavit do not throw any light on the above point. 5) In the above circumstances, there appears nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498- A of I.P.C., or that of one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are made out (even after what has been mentioned in the counter affidavit be taken to be true). As such, it appears to be a case of abuse of process of law to prosecute the accused, including the petitioners, who are sister-in-law, brother- in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. 6) Therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1907 of 2005, State Vs. Man Preet Singh and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Haldwani, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 17, 2010. H. Negi