The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of jurisdiction in cases of matrimonial discord, as established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Though the matter is listed today for the purposes of making an effort for mediation, the parties to the proceedings are participating in the proceedings through video conferencing, and upon being interacted with the applicant no. 1, the applicant no. 1, has made a categorical statement that owing to the given complexities of relationship, which the applicants have with the respondent no. 2, he is not open for mediation any more. He further submits that, since the earlier mediation efforts made on 29th March, 2023, has already failed, there is no possibility for mediation, which could be at all gone into by this Court.

2. The instant C482 application, which emanates from the FIR No. 15 of 2021, dated 16.10.2021, registered at Police Station Didihat, District Pithoragarh, by naming the accused person, which included the present applicants for their involvement in the commission of the offences under sections 498A, 354, 312, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, and under sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Upon the said set of allegations, the investigation was carried, and consequently the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer being Chargesheet No. 15 of 2022, dated 09.05.2022, where the alleged offence levelled against the present applicants were apparently found to be correct and as a consequence, thereto, it ultimately resulted into the registration of the Criminal Case No. 377 of 2022, State vs. Gauri Shankar Pal and Others, whereby the applicants have been summoned by an order dated 19.12.2022.

4. Upon a failure for making an effort for mediation and as stated also by the applicants, who has participated in the proceedings, the learned counsel for the applicants has ventured upon to address this C482 application on its own merits, and he has pressed upon the following issues:

“1. That the respondent no. 2, is carrying a criminal history because there already happens to be a proceeding drawn by one Smt. Janabdulari, as against the respondent no. 2, for the offence under section 420 of IPC, which stood registered as a consequence of the FIR dated 20.07.2016. In reference to which, the learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings raised by him to the said effect, as well as to that of the action taken of submission of the charge-sheet and the process of the issuance of the bailable warrant which was issued against the respondent.

2. At this stage itself, this Court feels it apt to observe that so far as the involvement of the respondent no. 2, in the alleged commission of the offence under section 420 of IPC as against Smt. Janabdulari, is concerned, for which the criminal proceedings are alleged to have been drawn, for which the charge-sheet has been submitted against the respondent no. 2, would be exclusively an issue which if at all would have got any bearing it would be qua the complainant of said proceedings under 420 of IPC i.e. Janabdulari, and no capital gain could be drawn by the applicants for the purposes of putting a challenge to the matrimonial discord, which stood registered as a consequence of the present FIR No. 15 of 2021, dated 16.10.2021.

3. There is another reason why this Court is not inclined to accept the arguments with regards to the impact of the proceedings under section 420 of IPC, because if that is taken into consideration, the set of allegations levelled, therein, would be entirely the dispute which relates to the act of duping which has been referred to in the FIR, as registered by the complainant Smt. Janabdulari, against the respondent no. 2, and which will not be having even a slightest bearing so far as the private matrimonial discord is concerned, which is absolutely a private dispute, emanating from the matrimonial misunderstanding between the married couples.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, respondent no. 2, was earlier married with one Shri Aman, and later on the said marriage of t