C482/1316/2013 of Ravi Singh Chuhan AND ANOTHER Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2013

Arguments

C482 No.1316 of 2013Hon’ble V.K.Bist, J.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the

applicants. Mr. R.K. Sah, A.G.A. with Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Sandeep Tandon with Mrs. Sandhna Nishad, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6980 of 2013 “State Vs. Prabhat Gupta and others”, registered with P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun along with summoning order dated 26.06.2013 as well as charge sheet dated 21.04.2013 submitted in Case Crime No.43 of 2013.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the F.I.R. was in general in nature and there was no specific allegation against the applicants. Moreover, the applicants are residing separately and they have no concerned with the family affairs of the husband of respondent no.2, namely, Gaurav Gupta.

As far as this argument of learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, the applicants can raise this plea before the trial Court. The trial Court will examine the evidence of the parties and each & every documentary evidence, which the trial Court finds necessary for the adjudication of the case.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no summoning order was passed under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

From the perusal of the order dated 26.06.2013, it is clear that cognizance was taken by the Magistrate under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The concerned Court will certainly consider the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants at the stage of charge and if the charge is also filed under these sections, the applicants will be prosecuted under these sections only.

Learned counsel for the applicant then relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another” reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741. He submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the matter where F.I.R. does not disclose any material, which could be held to be constituting any offence against the appellant. In my view, in the case in hand, specific and very serious allegations have been levelled against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and another” reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667. He submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that admittedly appellant was permanent resident of another place and has been living with her husband for several years. He submitted that in the case in hand, appellants are residing separately. In my view, the fact that whether the appellants are living separately or not will be looked into by the trial Court.

In my view, this is not a fit case where process of law has been misused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the High Court should interfere in the proceedings of the case in rarest of the rare cases. This Court does not find that this case comes under that category. The criminal misc. application is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case applicants surrender and moves bail application, the Court concerned shall decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously.

Arpan

(V.K. Bist, J.) 31.12.2013