Ram Avtar Sharma Others v. State of Uttarakhand Another

trial court.

2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the Applicants, are that ApplicantNo. 3, Gaurav Sharma, married RespondentNo. 2, Smt. Urvashi Sharma, on 23.01.2017 at Kankhal, Haridwar, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged in the FIR lodged by Respondent no. 2 on Criminal Misc. Application No. 1106 of 2019, Ram Avtar Sharma & Others Vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. 1

03.09.2017 that soon after the marriage, the Applicants began subjecting her to cruelty in connection with demands for dowry.

3. Various allegations of physical assault, verbal abuse, and intimidation were levelled, resulting in the lodging of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 377 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the investigation, offences under Sections 354 and 377 IPC were dropped; however, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon perusal of the charge sheet and police report, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the summoning order against the present Applicants.

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

5. Learned counsel for the Applicants contends that the present case is a counterblast to matrimonial proceedings initiated by ApplicantNo. 3 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.04.2017. The FIR dated

03.09.2017 was allegedly lodged thereafter with false and exaggerated claims, in mala fide retaliation.

6. It is urged that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC or Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially levelled charges under Sections 354 and 377 IPC were dropped during investigation, indicating a motivated complaint. There is no medical evidence, independent witness, or specific overt act against Applicants no. 1 and 2, the elderly parents. Continuation of proceedings would cause undue harassment and constitute abuse of process. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1106 of 2019, Ram Avtar Sharma & Others Vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. 2

7. Conversely, learned counsel for RespondentNo. 2 asserts that the FIR contains specific and substantiated allegations of dowry demands and harassment from the outset of the marriage on 23.01.2017, including an incident on 26.02.2017 when she was allegedly assaulted and ousted. Attempts at reconciliation failed, leading to the FIR after all options were exhausted. Dropping of certain sections reflects the fairness of the investigation, not the falsity of the case.

8. It was argued that the charge sheet details the role of each Applicant, and prima facie material exists for trial. At the summoning stage, only a prima facie case is required. Allegations against the parents are specific and should be tested in a trial. Dismissal of the petition with costs is prayed for.

9. At the outset, it is settled law that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with great caution. This power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Where the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of an offence, the court would not ordinarily go into disputed questions of fact or assess the correctness of the evidence at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. In the present matter, the FIR contains specific allegations that the Applicants harassed RespondentNo. 2 for dowry and subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally, culminating in her being expelled from the matrimonial home. These allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, clearly disclose the commission of offences under Criminal Misc. Application No. 1106 of 2019, Ram Avtar Sharma & Others Vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. 3 Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigation, which is an independent process, has resulted in the filing of a charge sheet against the Applicants for these offences.

11. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the police report and material on record, has taken cognizance and issued process. These steps are in accordance with the law and based on the judicial application of mind. The that certain allegations under other sections were unsubstantiated and dropped during the investigation only indicates that the investigative process was fair in scrutinizing the available evidence.

12. The contention of the Applicants that the criminal case is a counterblast to the husband’s Section 9 petition under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot, in the facts of the present case, be a ground to quash the proceedings when the FIR and charge sheet disclose cognizable offences.

13. Similarly, the plea of absence of medical evidence at this stage is not sufficient to demolish the prosecution case. In offences under Section 498- A IPC, cruelty is not restricted to physical harm alone but includes mental harassment with a view to coercing a woman or her relatives to meet unlawful dowry demands. Such cruelty can be proved by oral and circumstantial evidence, and the absence of a medical certificate does not ipso facto make the case untenable.

14. The argument that the parents have been falsely implicated also does not merit acceptance at this stage. The FIR attributes overt acts and a specific role to all accused in the harassment and dowry demands. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1106 of 2019, Ram Avtar Sharma & Others Vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. 4 Whether these allegations are truthful is a question for the trial court to examine after evidence is led by both sides.

15. The Supreme Court has time and again held, in cases such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, that the High Court should not quash criminal proceedings merely on the ground that the accused has a defence which can be tested at trial. If there exists a prima facie case on the basis of the complaint and the investigation material, interference at the pre-trial stage is unwarranted. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any ground warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The FIR, the charge sheet, and the summoning order, on their face, disclose the commission of offences and make out a prima facie case necessitating trial. No material has been brought on record to show that the impugned proceedings are manifestly tainted with mala fides or constitute an abuse of the process of the court, so as to justify interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous ApplicationNo. 1106 of 2019titled “Ram Avtar Sharma & Others Vs State of Uttarakhand & Another”stands dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Dated:30.07.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 1106 of 2019, Ram Avtar Sharma & Others Vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. 5