State of Uttarakhand and Ors v. Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the

applicant has challenged the summoning/cognizance order dated 15.11.2022, passed by learned Sixth Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.7459 of 2022, State Vs. Shatrunjai, punishable u/s 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC, arising out of FIR No.106 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022, registered with Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

2. The facts in brief are that the applicant and respondent No.3 got married on 07.10.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Respondent No.3 on 28.02.2022 lodged an FIR against the applicant and her in-laws alleging that since, the very beginning, applicant and his family were not satisfied with the gifts received and arrangements made in the wedding, because of this reason they used to taunt and humiliate respondent No.3. It is also alleged by respondent No.3 that the applicant used to say that he has no feelings for her and also used to avoid marital cohabitation. She further alleged that her husband is an alcoholic and on

25.10.2019 at around 10:00 AM, when respondent No.3 tried to stop the applicant from taking alcohol, he slapped 2 her and also threatened her of more severe consequences next time, if she ever stops him from drinking. In the FIR, it is also alleged that the in-laws/parents of applicant, used to humiliate respondent No.3 by comparing her to servants working in the house. She also alleged that on 28.10.2019 i.e. only 20 days after marriage, applicant flew to Newzealand and has never returned since then and has treated respondent No.3 and her family members with constant ignorance.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned FIR is concocted and is far from truth and is filed just to harass the applicant and his family members and to extort money from them. He submits that respondent No.3 has reluctant and negative behavior and is suffering from mental anxiety, which fact was admitted by respondent No.3. He further submits that applicant and his family members did all possible things to treat her mental illness and treated her with utmost care and affection.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant the applicant had booked ticket of respondent No.3 to Newzealand so that she could accompany him but she had to stay in India as her visa was rejected, and, thereafter, strict covid guidelines prevented her to accompany the applicant. He also contends that on the alleged date on which the applicant is said to slap respondent No.3, they both had gone to open a bank account and this can be verified by documentary evidence. It is further contended by him that charge-sheet against the applicant was submitted in a routine manner, to which learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons without applying its judicial mind.

5. Learned State Counsel submits on the basis of its counter affidavit that the investigation was done with 3 utmost diligence and the veracity of documentary evidence and photographs submitted by the applicant could only be proved by a proper trial. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that statement of respondent No.3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima-facie proved a case u/s 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate under aforesaid Sections.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 in its counter affidavit states that the respondent No.3 tried her best to save her matrimonial relation but succumbed due to adamant behavior of her husband and in-laws. It is also stated in counter affidavit that the applicant-husband didn’t help her with spouse visa, so she couldn’t accompany him to Newzealand. It is further stated that in spite of all possible efforts to save her marriage, respondent No.3 was left completely broken, when she received a legal notice for divorce from her husband.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit. In its rejoinder affidavit it is stated that even after submitting documentary evidence and photographs to Investigating Officer, and the Investigating Officer mechanically submitted the charge-sheet by taking the contents of FIR as goofed truth. It is further stated that the FIR is filed by respondent No.3 with oblique motives and to extort money from the applicant and is thus an abuse of process of law.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima- facie made out a case against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments, 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:- “12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”

9. Recently, of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub- paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- “33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; 33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; 33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; 5

10. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant was summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

12. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6 aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229 D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed. Interim order dated 12.01.2023 stands vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

09.04.2025