Uttarakhand High Court
3 March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1489
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 155 of 2022
03 March, 2025
Yogesh Chandra Pant and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mukesh Rawat, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for applicants.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for private
respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present C482 application,
applicants have challenged the cognizance/ summoning
order dated 16.06.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Almora in Criminal Case No.567 of
2021 State Vs. Yogesh Pant and Others, for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 & 506
IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act;
charge sheet dated 25.04.2021 arising out of FIR No.02
of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 registered at P.S. Someshwar,
District Almora; order dated 11.11.2021 passed in
Criminal Revision No.11 of 2021 Yogesh Chandra Pant
Vs. State; order dated 06.12.2021 in Criminal Revision
No.17 of 2021 Smt. Prem Lata Pant Vs. State and order
dated 05.01.2022 in Criminal Revision No.28 of 2021
Gaurav Joshi Vs. State, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Almora.
2. The facts in the nutshell are that an FIR was
lodged by the respondent No.2-Harsha Pant, against her
husband-applicant No.1 and other applicants who are
1
2025:UHC:1489
her mother in-law and brother- in-law(cousin), on
22.10.2020 and on the basis of FIR No.02 of 2021, a case
crime was registered in Police Station Someshwar under
the aforesaid Sections. In the FIR respondent No.2 stated
that she married with applicant No.1 on 24.04.2016. It is
alleged in the FIR that from the very inception of
marriage, respondent No.2 was not treated well by the
applicants and just two weeks’ before the day of
marriage, applicant No.1 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from
her. She further narrated in the FIR a long tale of
harassment meted out to her at the hands of the
applicants, which further escalated after she delivered a
baby girl. The gravamen of the FIR is that the
harassment was meted out with the respondent No.2 for
the demand of dowry.
3. On the said FIR, after investigation against all
the applicants, a charge-sheet dated 25.04.2021 was
submitted by Investigating Officer and on the aforesaid
charge-sheet vide order dated 16.06.2021, cognizance
was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Almora under the aforesaid Sections and the applicants
were summoned for facing the trial. Against the
summoning order, revision petitions were filed by the
applicants independently before the learned Sessions
Judge, Almora, who dismissed all the revision petitions.
Thus, feeling aggrieved, the applicants are before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
filed a counter affidavit. He submits that he has no
instructions and could not get in touch with respondent
No.2 despite multiple attempts.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
2
2025:UHC:1489
applicants that the proceedings have been launched by
the respondent No.2 out of a counterblast to the
Restitution of Conjugal Rights petition filed by the
applicant No.1 against respondent No.2. It is further
contended by him that respondent No.2 was inspired by
western culture and she was demanding a separate
accommodation and didn’t want to live with her in-laws.
Thereafter, when applicant No.1 denied for her separate
accommodation, respondent No.2, on 11.09.2017, left
for Rudrapur, then, straight to Almora on pretext of
attending Bhagwat Katha and never returned back.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that
since respondent No.2 was not coming back to her
matrimonial house to join her husband, therefore, a suit
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by
the applicant No.1-husband, which was although later on
withdrawn.
7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the
applicants that a divorce petition was also filed by the
applicant No.1-husband in the Court of Family Judge,
Nainital, which is registered as Divorce Petition No.99 of
2019 Yogesh Pant Vs. Smt. Harsha Pant, which was
decreed in favour of the applicant No.1 and divorce on
the ground of mental cruelty was granted to applicant
No.1, which still subsists and no appeal has been filed
against it by the respondent No.2-wife. He further
submitted that the truth of the matter is that since, the
very beginning, respondent No.2 didn’t want to stay with
the applicants and the allegations which she narrated in
the FIR, are nothing but a bundle of lie just to falsely
implicate the applicants.
8. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent
No.2 is on record, in which, respondent No.2 supported
3
2025:UHC:1489
the contents of the FIR and submitted that the case is an
example where wife was subjected to physical and mental
harassment at the hands of the applicants.
9. The applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit, in
which, they have stated that charge-sheet was filed in a
mechanical manner and the learned CJM, while taking
cognizance, failed to appreciate that the alleged incidents
in the FIR don’t attract the ingredients of Section 498A
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and on perusal of the entire documents available on
record, coupled with the fact that applicant No.1 has
been granted divorce by the learned Family Court,
Nainital on the grounds of mental cruelty by respondent
No.2, which has not been challenged by the respondent
No.2, therefore, it is in the opinion of the this Court that
the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the FIR,
appear to be nothing but an exaggeration. Moreso, when
the parties are already divorced, this Court is of the
opinion that it is necessary to quash the FIR for the ends
of justice, so that the parties may live peacefully.
11. This Court is aware of its power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., but, still from the FIR, it appears that the
allegations raised by respondent No.2 in the impugned
FIR are only bald statements, which are not supported by
any kind of evidence. This Court is of the prima-facie
opinion that such incidents, as alleged by the respondent
No.2, were a result of strained matrimonial relations
between her and applicant No.1 and were mere
exaggeration.
12. In view of the FIR lodged by the respondent
No.2, the relation between the parties have reached to a
place where there is no come back. Thus, the argument
4
2025:UHC:1489
advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that
the proceedings have been launched is counterblast to
Restitution of Conjugal Rights petition, which was
initiated by applicant No.1, appears to be true.
13. In this view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that such a prosecution needs not to
be allowed to continue when the parties have already
been granted divorce and the FIR was prima-facie a result
of strained matrimonial relations. Respondent no.2 wife
has now left with no interest in the matter.
14. In view of the above, present C482 application
is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the
Criminal Case No.567 of 2021 State Vs. Yogesh Pant and
Others, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Almora for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and under
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby
quashed. Resultantly, the charge-sheet dated 25.04.2021
and FIR No.02 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 registered at
P.S. Someshwar, District Almora, also stand quashed. All
the impugned judgments and orders passed by learned
Trial Court and the learned Revisional court stand
quashed.
15. Interim order dated 27.01.2022 stands
vacated.
16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.03.2025
PN
5
