Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and Others v. Counsel for the

The FIR dated 20.12.2020 was lodged by Respondent No. 2 (wife of Applicant No. 1), alleging that after her marriage with Applicant No. 1 on 22.01.2018, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands by the Applicants. It was alleged that she was physically assaulted, verbally abused, and driven out of her matrimonial home for failing to fulfil monetary demands amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/–. She alleged repeated episodes of Criminal Misc. Application No.1748of 2018, Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 Ashish Naithani J. physical and mental cruelty, including specific incidents at her matrimonial home and during her stay at Hotel Radisson, Haridwar.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all three Applicants under the aforesaid penal provisions, which led to the Magistrate taking cognizance and summoning them to face trial.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the allegations are vague and general in nature, lacking in specific details to substantiate the offences alleged. It was contended that there are irreconcilable differences between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 due to her "free lifestyle," which caused discord in the marriage. Still, such domestic differences cannot be stretched into criminal prosecution.

5. It was argued that Respondent No. 2 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home much before the date of the alleged incidents and had already taken her valuables, thus making the accusations of cruelty and dowry demand fabricated and untenable.

6. It was contended on behalf of the Applicantsthat the charge sheet was filed in a routine and mechanical manner without any proper investigation, and no medical or documentary evidence was collected to support the allegations of cruelty or injury.

7. It was further argued that the cognizance order is cyclostyled and non-speaking and was passed without judicial application of mind. The Applicants also stressed that the proceedings amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law and should be quashed in the interest of justice. Criminal Misc. Application No.1748of 2018, Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J.

8. Lastly, on behalf of the Applicants, their learned Counsel expressed willingness for mediation and indicated the possibility of an amicable settlement, characterizing the matter as a matrimonial dispute rather than a criminal offence.

9. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the application and submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations against all three Applicants. The charge sheet is based on cogent and consistent statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC of the Complainant and other family members, namely Smt. Kiran Karnwal, Akash Karnwal, and Ashok Karnwal, who clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences.

10. The State argued that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, ought not to enter into disputed questions of fact or conduct a mini-trial. The allegations are not inherently improbable, and the Applicants have an alternative remedy of seeking discharge before the Trial Court.

11. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to submit that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice, which is not made out in the present case.

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

13. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 2020, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The principal contention of the applicants is that the allegations are Criminal Misc. Application No.1748of 2018, Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J. false, vague, general in nature, and motivated by personal differences arising out of a strained matrimonial relationship. It is also alleged that the investigating officer did not conduct a fair investigation and mechanically submitted the charge sheet.

14. Before examining the merit of these submissions, it would be apposite to reiterate the well-settled legal position governing the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories where the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. These include cases where the FIR or complaint, even if accepted in entirety, does not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or malicious intent.

15. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116; State of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh Kumar, (2022) 9 SCC 433 has consistently held that the High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, ought not to assume the role of a trial Court or weigh the sufficiency of evidence. The purpose of such power is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, not to prematurely evaluate factual disputes or credibility of witnesses.

16. In the instant case, the FIR contains specific allegations that after the marriage was solemnised on

22.01.2018, the complainant was subjected to persistent physical and mental cruelty at the hands of all three applicants. The allegations include instances of abuse at the matrimonial home and during stays in hotels, as well as repeated coercion for dowry amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/– and other articles. The FIR further details the demand of Rs. Criminal Misc. Application No.1748of 2018, Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J. 1,00,000/– towards expenses, and mentions an incident dated

19.02.2019 at Hotel Radisson, Haridwar, where complainant was allegedly abused and locked inside a room.

17. These allegations have been corroborated material particulars by the complainant and three supporting witnesses, namely Smt. Kiran Karnwal, Akash Karnwal, and Ashok Karnwal, whose statements under Section 161 CrPC form part of the charge sheet. The nature and consistency of these statements prima facie support the prosecutorial case.

18. The argument advanced by the Applicants that the FIR is vague and that no specific roles are attributed to the husband's parents is not persuasive. In offences under Section 498-A IPC, the collective and systemic nature of cruelty within a matrimonial home is often reflected in the role played by the family members of the husband. Each incident doesn't need to be broken down into isolated acts against each accused, provided that the allegations collectively constitute cruelty or harassment.

19. While the Applicants may have grounds to argue that the allegations are exaggerated or that the prosecution has overlooked certain exculpatory circumstances, such contentions require evaluation of evidence and appreciation of factual disputes, which can only be done at trial. The Applicants are at liberty to raise these pleas at the appropriate stage, including while seeking discharge under Section 239 CrPC.

20. The prayer that the matter be quashed owing to its matrimonial nature or the possibility of settlement does not aid the Applicants in the absence of any actual compromise or joint request for quashing based on a duly executed settlement agreement. The Court cannot assume reconciliation where none exists on record. Criminal Misc. Application No.1748of 2018, Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J.

21. No case is made out for exercising the extraordinary and exceptional power of quashing the proceedings at the threshold. The allegations in the FIR and the accompanying material prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and require adjudication by the trial court. ORDER In view of the above discussion and having regard to the material on record, this Court finds no ground to quash the charge sheet dated 09.04.2021, the cognizance order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3045 of 2021 arising out of FIR No. 155 of 2020, P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1748 of 2021 under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly dismissed. Dt: 12.06.2025 SB ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.1748of 2018, Nikhil Mohan Bhartari and ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J.