JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

This application arises from a matrimonial dispute between Dr. Shah Fahad (Applicant No. 1) and his wife, Kushhal (Respondent No. 2), who married on 15.12.2016, in a marriage that has since irretrievably broken down. The applicants,Dr. Fahad, his parents, and uncle, assert it was a love marriage without dowry, and that Kushhal refused to live in Roorkee due to her career in Delhi. Dr. Fahad filed a restitution petition in August 2020.

2. Respondent no. 2, namely, Kushhal, however, alleges dowry harassment, including demands of Rs.1 crore and a car for a hospital, as well as physical and mental cruelty. She also accuses Dr. Fahad of an affair with a colleague, Dr. Nitisha Rathee, and refers to an assault incident in November 2019. After failed mediation, she lodged FIR No. 678/2020 under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. During investigation, witness statements were recorded supporting her version. However, the charge-sheet dated 20.02.2021 dropped the dowry charges while retaining the rest. Cognizance was taken by the ACJM, Roorkee, in April 2021.

4. The applicants seek quashing of the FIR and proceedings, calling the case a retaliatory move to the restitution suit. They rely on the omission of dowry charges to argue a lack of credibility. The State and Respondent No. 2 oppose the plea, asserting that the remaining allegations are serious, supported by evidence, and require trial. The case thus raises the question whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process or warrant judicial scrutiny.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings are a gross abuse of process, initiated with mala fide intent to pressurize Applicant No. 1, Dr. Shah Fahad, amid a strained matrimonial dispute. It is pointed out that the FIR was lodged only after Dr. Fahad filed a restitution suit, suggesting retaliation rather than genuine grievance.

7. It is argued that the FIR contains vague and general allegations, lacking specific instances of cruelty or dowry demands. The applicants claim the marriage was a love marriage, free from any dowry transaction, as both families are educated and financially sound. The complainant, a working woman based in Delhi, is alleged to have fabricated the complaint due to her unwillingness to relocate post-marriage.

8. The counsel emphasises that the investigating officer dropped the dowry-related charges (Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) for lack of evidence, showing no prima facie case. Applicant No. 4, Arshad Ali, who lives separately, is said to have been wrongly implicated without any specific allegations.

9. Reliance is placed on the Mahila Help Line report and the charge-sheet to argue that the dispute is purely matrimonial, with no criminal element warranting trial. Continuation of proceedings, it is urged, would amount to misuse of the judicial process and cause undue harm to the applicants.

10. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submitted that the FIR discloses specific and serious allegations of cruelty, physical assault, and harassment for dowry. It was contended that the complainant has clearly narrated the repeated instances of ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws, including demands of Rs.1 crore and a car, and that she was assaulted and pressurized to bring money from her parental home.

11. The State submits that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses—Julfikar Ali, Sadik, Soyeb, and Varsha Taraniya—recorded under Section 161 CrPC corroborate the FIR and support the prosecution’s case. These statements, it is argued, cannot be discarded at the pre-trial stage.

12. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet was filed after a proper investigation, and the Magistrate took cognizance upon due application of judicial mind. The State contends that the material collected establishes a prima facie case