Uttarakhand High Court
22 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7488
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1763 of 2017
22 August, 2025
Sanjay Singh Bhandari @ Sanjay Bhandari and others
-------------Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another
----------Respondents
Presence:-
M. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by
Mr. Akshay Latwal, AGA for the State.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Oral)
By means of present Criminal Misc.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants are seeking
to quash the summoning order dated 14.11.2017, passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal Case No. 5469 of
2017, State vs. Sanjay Bhandari & others, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Sections ¾ of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants have further
prayed to quash the charge-sheet no. 183 of 2017 dated
02.11.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant
no.1-Sanjay Singh Bhandari got married on 25.11.2016
1
2025:UHC:7488
to Smt. Komal Negi @ Kamla Negi D/o respondent no.2-
Shri Heera Singh Negi. As per the case of the applicant
no.1, the D/o respondent no.2 was not happy with the
marriage and after 15-20 days of her marriage, she came
back to her parental house from her matrimonial house;
that no demand of dowry was ever raised by him or his
family members and the marriage was solemnized
without any dowry; that the applicant no. 2 Lata Manral
alias Babita Manral is the sister of applicant no.1 and is
having two children and is living separately at Haldwani;
that applicant no. 3 is the mother of applicant no.1 and
after the death of father of the applicant no.1, his mother
was totally dependent upon him and is living at Agra;
that after the marriage, daughter of respondent no. 2
instead of living in Agra wanted to live at Haldwani; that
the applicant no.1 did not want to leave his old ailing
mother; that the daughter of respondent no. 2 was
avoiding to reside with the applicant no.1, as such, the
applicant no.1 filed case No. 609 of 2017, Sanjay Singh
vs. Kamla Negi, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, before the Family Judge, Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends
that on 19th June, 2017, the applicant no.1 and his
mother (applicant no.3) went to the house of the
respondent no.2 for meeting applicant no.1’s wife and for
taking her back to home, then the respondent no.2
assaulted the applicant no.1 and threatened to lodge an
FIR against him and his entire family. On 28.07.2017
and 05.08.2017, the applicant no.1 and his married
sister (applicant no. 2) moved an application to S.S.P.,
Nainital. As a counterblast, an FIR was lodged against
the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections
2
2025:UHC:7488
32, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
4. Counsel for the applicants further submits
that the applicants filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.
1644 of 2017, Lata Manral @ Babita Manral and others
vs. State and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2017
Sanjay Singh Bhandari vs. State, and this Hon’ble Court
granted stay of arrest to the applicants and later on, on
02.11.2017, when the charge-sheet was filed and the
summoning order was issued against the applicants, they
approached, this Hon’ble Court challenging the said
summoning order in present C-482 Petition No. 1763 of
2017, in which, an interim order was granted to them on
20.12.2017, by which, the further proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 5469 of 2017, were stayed.
5. On 21.02.2018, the Court directed the
presence of the parties for mediation at Mediation Centre
of this Court and the Mediator has submitted its report
dated 14.03.2018 that the Mediation was not successful.
Despite time been granted to respondent no.2 for filing
the counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent no.2.
6. Counsel for the applicants filed a
Supplementary Affidavit (IA No. 2247 of 2022) and
contended that the parties to the present C-482 Petition
have settled their disputes in terms of the Compromise
which was placed on record along with Supplementary
Affidavit. The said I.A. No. 2247 of 2022 was allowed on
28.09.2022. The counsel appearing for respondent no.2
submitted on the said date that he has no instructions
3
2025:UHC:7488
on behalf of respondent no.2, as such, fresh notices were
issued to the said respondent no.2 and Office Report
indicates that on 26.10.2022, the notices were received
by respondent no.2.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that as per the compromise reached between the
applicants and the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2
was paid an amount of Rs. 85,000/- in cash and other
ornaments of daughter of respondent no.2 was returned
to him. It was further contended that in Civil Suit No.
117 of 2021, filed by the daughter of respondent no. 2
under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the
decree of divorce was granted in favour of daughter of
respondent no.2 on 14.01.2022, and thereafter, the
daughter of respondent no.2 solemnized her marriage
with some other person. The copy of the decree of divorce
and the compromise along with the photographs of the
marriage of daughter of respondent no.2 with some
another person was also enclosed with the
Supplementary Affidavit.
8. The counsel for the applicants, as such,
contends that the entire criminal proceedings initiated
against the applicants by the respondent no.2 was a
counterblast to the complaint made by applicants and as
now a compromise has been reached between the parties,
and the daughter of respondent no.2 has been granted
divorce and she has re-married, as such, the criminal
proceedings against the applicants are liable to be
quashed.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
4
2025:UHC:7488
Judgments has held that the Courts can exercise their
inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure
the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others,
reported in 2025 INSC 8 in para 11 has held as under:
“11. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to
refer to the decision of this Court in Mohammad
Wajid and Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2003
SCC Online SC 951, whereunder this Court, in so far
as it is relevant, held thus: –
“34………it will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes
a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be,
with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as
well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation….”
10. After hearing learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the considered view that the
entire proceedings initiated against the applicants by
the respondent no. 2 was intended with mala fide
5
2025:UHC:7488
and was maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to indict
the applicants due to personal grudge. The applicant
no. 2-Lata Manral, who is married sister of the
applicant no.1 and was living separately, with her
husband and the applicant no.3, who is mother of
applicant no.1, were implicated in the case to settle
the personal scores.
11. In view of the above, the summoning order
dated 14.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital,
in Criminal Case No. 5469 of 2017, State vs. Sanjay
Bhandari & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
498-A of IPC and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, as well as the entire Criminal proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The
present C-482 petition stands allowed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
22.08.2025
Kaushal
6