Dhoop Chand and Others v. Counsel for the

Case No. 901 of 2021 titled Smt. Usha Devi v. Dhoop Chand and Others, pending before the said court. The impugned order arises from a private complaint filed by respondent no. 2, Smt. Usha Devi, the legally wedded wife of applicant no. 1, Dhoop Chand.

2. According to the complainant, the marriage between her and applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 24.05.1984 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that from the very inception of the marriage, the applicants started 1 Criminal Misc. Application No.1945 of 2021-----Dhoop Chand and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. making unlawful demands for dowry, including an alleged demand of ₹20,00,000/- in cash.

3. The complainant claims that due to the non- fulfilment of this demand, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Specific allegations include being given insufficient food, being made to sleep in inhumane conditions, and being beaten frequently. The complaint further alleges that she was eventually driven out of her matrimonial home along with her children approximately 10–12 years ago and has since been residing separately.

4. The complainant contends that despite repeated attempts to seek assistance from the police, including a representation made to the Superintendent of Police on

24.08.2021, no action was taken, compelling her to approach the Court. It is further asserted that the applicants have on several occasions entered her current residence unlawfully, physically assaulted her and her daughter, and issued threats to vacate the house.

5. In support of her complaint, the complainant examined herself under Section 200 CrPC and her daughter, Maya Devi, under Section 202 CrPC. Based on these materials, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 452, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and summoned them to face trial.

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

7. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the criminal complaint is a belated and malicious attempt to harass them, arising from a long-standing property dispute rather than any genuine matrimonial grievance. On behalf of the 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.1945 of 2021-----Dhoop Chand and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. applicants, it is further contended that the complainant has been living separately for the past 10–12 years, and there has been no recent matrimonial relationship to support allegations under Section 498A IPC.

8. It is further urged that the complaint lacks specific dates or medical corroboration and is supported only by the complainant’s daughter, an interested witness. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Magistrate took cognizance mechanically, ignoring the prolonged delay and the absence of an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. It is also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC and that no prima facie case is made out under any alleged penal provisions.

9. Learned counsel for the State and for respondent no. 2 contends that the complaint discloses specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty, unlawful entry, and threats, which are sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 498A, 452, 323, and 506 of the IPC. It is submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the complainant, after being subjected to years of abuse and neglect, was left with no option but to seek judicial redress.

10. It is also contended on behalf of the State that the delay in lodging the complaint is justified, given the continuous nature of the cruelty and the complainant’s vulnerable position. The complainant has duly supported her allegations under Section 200 CrPC, and her daughter has corroborated the same under Section 202 CrPC. The State maintains that upon perusing the material on record, the learned Magistrate rightly found sufficient grounds to summon the applicants, and no case for interference under Section 482 CrPC is made out.

11. Upon perusal of the complaint, the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, and the 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.1945 of 2021-----Dhoop Chand and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. summoning order dated 30.11.2021, this Court is required to assess whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or whether the allegations disclose the commission of a cognisable offence warranting trial.

12. The complaint alleges that from the very inception of the marriage in 1984, the complainant was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfilment of dowry demands. Specific incidents are narrated, including being given minimal food, denied basic necessities, beaten with sticks and burning wood, and ultimately being ousted from her matrimonial home.

13. It is also alleged that the accused unlawfully entered the complainant’s house and assaulted her and her daughter, with threats to vacate the premises. These incidents, though spread over a long period, are alleged to be part of a continuing pattern of cruelty and harassment.

14. The scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is limited at this stage. The Court is not expected to meticulously evaluate the truthfulness of each allegation or weigh the sufficiency of evidence as in a trial. Instead, the Court must determine whether the complaint on face discloses commission of a cognizable offence and whether proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or malicious intent.

15. In the present case, the complainant has given a consistent narrative of cruelty and harassment, both physical and mental, which is partly corroborated by the statement of her daughter under Section 202 CrPC.

16. While the applicants have alleged that the complaint is an afterthought and lacks medical evidence, it is well settled 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.1945 of 2021-----Dhoop Chand and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. that the absence of medical documents is not always fatal at the stage of summoning.

17. Further, the contention regarding delay and limitation under Section 468 CrPC cannot be examined mechanically. Allegations under Section 498A IPC, relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives, are often part of continuous wrongs.

18. The applicant's argument that no inquiry was conducted under Section 202 CrPC also does not merit acceptance. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and one witness under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and thereafter exercised judicial discretion to issue process. There is no prima facie illegality in the summoning order that would justify quashing the entire proceedings at this nascent stage.

19. In balancing considerations, the Court also notes that the applicants are aged individuals. Still, age alone is not a ground to shield one from judicial scrutiny when serious allegations involving cruelty and threats are made. The offences alleged under Sections 498A, 452, 323, and 506 IPC warrant trial if a prima facie case is disclosed, as appears here. The material on record cannot be said to be wholly unbelievable or incapable of leading to conviction.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, no exceptional circumstance is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC at this stage. ORDER The application under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 901 of 2021 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.1945 of 2021-----Dhoop Chand and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J. titled Smt. Usha Devi v. Dhoop Chand and Others is hereby dismissed. Dt: 09.06.2025 SB ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. 6 Criminal Misc. Application No.1945 of 2021-----Dhoop Chand and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Ashish Naithani J.