Rinku Sharma and others ………… v. Piyush State of Uttarakhand and another

27.01.2024 in FIR No.435 of 2023, registered at Police Station Rishkesh in Criminal Case No. 241 of 2024, (Computer Generated No.493 of 2024), State Vs. Rinku Sharma and others, under Sections 354, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1961”), pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that an FIR was registered against the applicants alleging therein that respondent no.2 was subjected to cruelty and physical violence by the applicants on account of persistent demands for dowry. In addition, specific allegations have been made against applicant no.3 under Section 354 of IPC. It is further stated that on 17.10.2022, the applicants assaulted the respondent no.2, as a result of which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her parents. On the basis of the statements recorded and material collected during the investigation, the 1 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun proceeded to frame charges under Sections 354, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Act of 1961 against the applicants. Hence, this C482 application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun has erred in law by summoning the applicant vide order dated 09.04.2023 without careful perusal of the evidence on record without application of judicial mind. The bare perusal of FIR clearly shows that the ingredients of any of the offences against the applicants are not made out and the Investigating Officer without proper investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet in a mechanical manner.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire story put forth by the respondent no.2 is false, concocted and nothing but a counter-blast to an earlier complaint lodged by the applicant no.1 against respondent no.2 and her father in Complaint Case No.356 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323 and 406 of IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. The learned counsel further submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 have no concern with the matrimonial relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and they have been unnecessarily roped into the present case. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that there is no evidence on record to support the allegations of demand of dowry or acts of physical violence, on the part of the applicants.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants further contends the respondent no.2 herself left her matrimonial home on 17.10.2022 of her own volition and has been residing at her parental house ever since. It is also contended by learned counsel that from that date onwards there has been no physical relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and therefore applicant no.1 cannot be treated as the biological father of the child born to 2 respondent no.2. The learned counsel also submits that the respondent no.2 has been living in an extramarital relationship with another person; therefore, all circumstances clearly demonstrate that the FIR in-question is concocted and is designed to falsely implicate the applicants, and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is itself tainted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Investigating Officer only after carrying out a thorough and investigation and on the basis of statements recorded of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and that of respondent no.2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as other documentary evidence filed the charge sheet under Section 354, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Act of 1961. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Section 354 of IPC was specifically added against applicant no.3 only after collection of relevant evidence during investigation. The learned counsel contends that after considering the relevant material on record placed before him the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun, found a prima facie case and rightly took cognizance and summoned the applicants under the aforesaid provisions of law.

7. The learned counsel for the State by means of their counter affidavit also submit that during investigation, the blood samples of applicant no.1 and the child of respondent no.2 were sent to F.S.L. for D.N.A. matching, and as per the report, applicant no.1 was confirmed to be the biological father of the child.

8. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that she was repeatedly subjected to cruelty and physical violence at the hands of the applicants on account of persistent demands for dowry. He also submits that despite her sincere efforts to pacify the applicants and to explain her inability to meet such demands, she was ultimately ousted 3 from her matrimonial home and was compelled to seek refuge at her parental house. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent has continuously suffered both – physical assaults and verbal abuse at the hands of the applicants, which has caused her immense mental and emotional distress.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations in the FIR and the investigation material disclose multiple sets of disputed facts, which can only be settled before the trial court after a proper trial. Moreover, the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the FIR disclose a prima facie case against the applicants. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly with great caution, and only where the allegations do not disclose any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. In the present case, no such exceptional ground is made out.

10. Since offences alleged against the applicants are serious in nature and a prima facie case is made out against the applicants, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicants should be subjected to proper trial.

11. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of 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; 4

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 investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; the court has to permit

12. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants were summoned after cognizance. This Court cannot enter into the merits of this case; therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to interfere at this stage.

13. Accordingly C482 application stands dismissed. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 28.08.2025 5