Amarjeet and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Presence:- Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. B.N. Molaki, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. None is present for respondent no. 2/complainant. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicants challenging the summoning order dated

15.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, District Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 2812 of 2017, State Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and the entire proceedings arising out from it.

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that:- Marriage between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 19.05.2014. From the wedlock, a child was born on 20.04.2015, but, just after one month from the date child was born, the relationship between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 got estranged, 2 due to which, respondent no. 2 left the house of the applicant no. 1 and they started living separately since

12.07.2015. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, wherein, she has submitted that she was harassed by her husband and in- laws for demand of dowry. On a complaint, an FIR was lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No. 108 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted to the Court. Thereafter, against the summoning order dated 15.06.2017, the applicants were summoned to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred the present criminal miscellaneous application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants and other relatives have falsely been implicated in the case, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the case are allowed to continue against the applicants. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, has placed reliance in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another’ reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472. 3 Paragraph no. 8 of the aforesaid judgments is extracted as hereunder:- “8. Referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, it was submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged and there is need to adopt measures to prevent such misuse. The Madras High Court in MP No. 1 of 2008 in Cr. OP No. 1089 of 2008 dated 4-8-2008 directed issuance of the following guidelines: “It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction. Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations. Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant. By suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a considerable extent by the Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates themselves accede to the bare requests of the police without examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative effects thereby, the very purpose of the legislation would be defeated and the doors of conciliation would be closed forever. The husband and his family members may have difference of opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand are not the answers. The ultimate object of every legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and perused the records.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they amount to abuse of the process of law or are based on vague or omnibus allegations. In the case of ‘Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana’, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that criminal proceedings 4 against in-laws without specific allegations amount to misuse of the legal process.

6. After going through the FIR and the chargesheet, it is revealed that the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have no role to play in harassing respondent no. 2 for demand of dowry. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint are general and do not disclose specific acts of cruelty or demand of dowry against applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4. It appears to be a case of over-implication, wherein the entire family of the husband has been unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings without substantive material.

7. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application is allowed.

9. The summoning order dated 15.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, District Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 2812 of 2017, State Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the entire 5 proceedings arising out from it, is hereby quashed qua the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4.

10. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere as regards the proceedings so far it relates to applicant no. 1 in Criminal Case No. 2812 of 2017, State Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.) 07.08.2025