Judgment reserved on:-10.07.2025 Judgment delivered on:-28.08.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.1198 of 2024

Rinku Sharma and others ………….Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Piyush Sammal, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the

State.

Mr. Priya Mewari, Advocate for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present C482 application has been filed by the

applicants for quashing the cognizance order dated 09.04.2024 and Charge Sheet No.25 of 2024 dated 27.01.2024 in FIR No.435 of 2023, registered at Police Station Rishkesh in Criminal Case No. 241 of 2024, (Computer Generated No.493 of 2024), State Vs. Rinku Sharma and others, under Sections 354, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1961”), pending in the court of learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that an FIR was registered against the applicants alleging therein that respondent no.2 was subjected to cruelty and physical violence by the applicants on account of persistent demands for dowry. In addition, specific allegations have been made against applicant no.3 under Section 354 of IPC. It is further stated that on 17.10.2022, the applicants assaulted the respondent no.2, as a result of which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her parents. On the basis of the statements recorded and material collected during the investigation, the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun proceeded to frame charges under Sections 354, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Act of 1961 against the applicants. Hence, this C482 application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun has erred in law by summoning the applicant vide order dated 09.04.2023 without careful perusal of the evidence on record without application of judicial mind. The bare perusal of FIR clearly shows that the ingredients of any of the offences against the applicants are not made out and the Investigating Officer without proper investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet in a mechanical manner.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire story put forth by the respondent no.2 is false, concocted and nothing but a counter-blast to an earlier complaint lodged by the applicant no.1 against respondent no.2 and her father in Complaint Case No.356 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323 and 406 of IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. The learned counsel further submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 have no concern with the matrimonial relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and they have been unnecessarily roped into the present case. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that there is no evidence on record to support the allegations of demand of dowry or acts of physical violence, on the part of the applicants.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants further contends that the respondent no.2 herself left her matrimonial home on 17.10.2022 of her own volition and has been residing at her parental house ever since. It is also contended by learned counsel that from that date onwards there has been no physical relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and therefore applicant no.1 cannot be treated as the biological father of the child born to respondent no.2. The learned counsel also submits that the respondent no.2 has been living in an extramarital relationship with another person; therefore, all these circumstances clearly demonstrate that the FIR in-question is concocted and is design