Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is not warranted when allegations disclose cognizable offences and must be adjudicated at trial.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of Special S.C./S.T. Case No. 14 of 2023 pending before the Court of the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Dehradun.

2. The Applicant Mukul Goyal and the private Respondent Naina Surat Rawat are husband and wife. Their matrimonial relationship has been strained and multiple proceedings between the parties are stated to be pending in different jurisdictions.

3. It appears from the record that matrimonial proceedings between the parties were also initiated in the United Kingdom, where proceedings relating to dissolution of marriage and financial remedies were pursued before the Family Court at London. Documents relating to such proceedings, including orders passed by the Family Court in England, have been placed on record in the present petition.

4. The Applicant is presently residing abroad and, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it was brought to the notice of the Court that he is residing in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, by an earlier order passed in the proceedings, liberty was granted to the Applicant to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court for participation in the trial through virtual mode.

5. The criminal proceedings sought to be quashed are pending before the competent court at Dehradun. It was also observed in earlier proceedings before this Court that the mere pendency of the present application under Section 482 CrPC would not preclude the Trial Court from proceeding with the trial in accordance with law.

6. During the pendency of the present petition, attempts were also made to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties. The parties were directed to appear before the counsellor/mediator; however, the counselling proceedings could not be concluded successfully.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the criminal proceedings initiated against the Applicant are an abuse of the process of law and arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties.

8. It is argued that the parties have been involved in matrimonial litigation for several years and proceedings relating to their marital relationship have also taken place before courts in the United Kingdom. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings in India have been initiated with an ulterior motive in the backdrop of the matrimonial dispute.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant is presently residing abroad and has been participating in the proceedings through virtual mode. It is contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause undue harassment to the Applicant.

10. It is further argued that the allegations made against the Applicant do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and that the criminal prosecution has been instituted only to pressurize the Applicant in connection with the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

11. Learned counsel therefore submits that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and that the proceedings pending before the Trial Court deserve to be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice.

12. Per contra, learned brief holder appearing for the State submits that the alleg