Dinesh Garg & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Radha Arya, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore these are being heard and decided by this common judgment.

By means of the present C482 applications, the applicants have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 01.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Criminal Case No.1126 of 2022 (Case Crime No.573 of 2021), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Kotwali Rishikesh, District Dehradun along with judgment and order dated 25.11.2023, in Criminal Revision No.45 of 2023, passed by learned Ist Additional 1 Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

Facts of the case in a nutshell, as per version of F.I.R., are that respondent no.2-wife was married to applicant no.1-husband – Nikhil Garg, who was physically and mentally tortured by the applicant no.1- husband and his family members for demand of dowry, specifically for a demand of an SUV Car and ₹1 crore from the year 2015, despite her family already had spent a significant amount. The respondent no.2-wife was horrifically abused and many forced attempts of abortion were also made on her; on many occasions her in-laws allegedly tried to declare her mentally insane in order to facilitate a divorce. With these allegations the FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated and on completion of the same a charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was submitted in the court and upon the said charge sheet, court took cognizance and summoned the accused persons to face trial. The applicants-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The applicants-accused persons thereafter moved an application seeking discharge. The said application was rejected by the trial court by its order dated 25.07.2023. Against the rejection of discharge application the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.31 of 2023, which was rejected by the revisional court vide order dated 09.08.2023. Thereafter vide order

01.09.2023, the trial court framed charges against the accused persons under the aforesaid offences. Challenging the order of framing of charge dated

01.09.2023 present applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been filed. 2

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the trial court has erred in law in framing charge against the applicants-accused persons; there was no evidence available against them.

It is a bounden duty of trial court to reach to conclusion that if prima facie evidence is available and then only it can proceed to frame charge which is missing in the present case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent no.3 has supported the order passed by trial court and stated that the trial court on being prima facie being satisfied with the case, framed charge against the applicants-accused persons.

In my considered opinion there is no illegality in framing of charge. Applicants-accused persons are at liberty to adduce their evidence before the trial court in their defence and will have an opportunity to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses and if they are innocent they would be acquitted. Moreover the charge can be altered at any stage as is provided under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the order of framing of charge against the applicants-accused persons to allow the discharge application moved by the applicants-accused persons and the same was rejected by the trial court; the revision also met with the same fate of dismissal.

Having considered the facts and circumstances 3 of the case, I am of view that there is no interference called for.

Accordingly both these C482 application(s) fail and the same are dismissed. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.07.2025 4