IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a prima facie case was established based on the FIR and supporting evidence, warranting the continuation of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

The challenge in this petition, initially was made to an FIR No. 963 of 2022, State Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, under Sections 323, 342, 354, 376, 504 & 511 IPC, Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar. During the pendency of the petition, it appears that after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Therefore, the petitioners also challenged the charge sheet no. 1 dated 18.08.2023 and cognizance order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 1902 of 2023, State Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, under Section 323, 325, 342, 354, 504, & 354A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Basis of the case is an FIR dated 12.12.2022 filed by the informant. According to it, the informant was married to the petitioner No.1 Pradeep Kumar on 09.12.2018. After marriage, the informant was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of a Scorpio car and Rs.35 Lakh cash in dowry. The informant was expelled from the house on 17.09.2022. On 19.09.2022, the informant gave a report to the police; the matter was forwarded to Mahila Help Line; counselling was done; parties entered into a compromise on 14.11.2022; the informant again joined the company of her husband; but again, according to the FIR, in the intervening night of 3-4.12.2022, the informant was assaulted; she was confined in a room where her brother-in-law Kunal Kumar tried to rape her and made obscene gestures and molested her; on 04.12.2022, somehow, the informant could contact someone and thereafter, police was called. It is this FIR, in which after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Section 323, 325, 342, 354, 504, 354 A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act. It is also impugned in the instant petition

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the parties have already entered into a compromise on 17.11.2022. Whatever dispute was there between the parties that had got absolved by virtue of a compromise. Thereafter, it is argued that nothing had happened. Learned counsel would argued that there is a CCTV footage which shows that no molestation or sexual assault was done by the petitioner no. 2 Kunal Kumar. He would submit that CCTV footage shows that no maarpeet was done with the informant. He would also submit that a property was also transferred in the name of the informant by her husband. No prima facie, case is made out.

5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that prima facie case is made out. There is an injury report which shows dislocation of the joint. The victim and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

6. Learned State counsel would submit the victim and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There is an injury report as well.

7. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope is quite wide, but also much guided by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases.

8. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines in such matters. Para 102 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise