Uttarakhand High Court
7 May vs Rajni Singh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3599
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 529 of 2023
07 May, 2025
Hardev Singh & others
--Applicants
Versus
Rajni Singh
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present C482 application,
applicants have put to challenge the summoning order
dated 05.02.2023 along with entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.107 of 2022, Rajni Singh vs. Hardev
Singh & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending
in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District
Uttarkashi.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that
respondent moved an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola,
Uttarkashi with the allegations that respondent got
married with applicant no.1 on 01.07.2022 and when on
07.07.2022, respondent went to her matrimonial house,
the accused persons assaulted her and ousted her from
matrimonial house. In the complaint, she has stated that
in the year 2011, respondent was appointed as staff
nurse in CHC Purola and in the year 2014-15, she was
appointed as Block Coordinator in CHC Purola. The
1
2025:UHC:3599
applicant no.1 and respondent used to work in the same
place/hospital. In the year 2015, applicant no.1
proposed her for marriage. However, respondent told the
applicant no.1 that she belongs to Scheduled Caste
category, therefore, she could not marry him and his
family members will also not accept her as daughter-in-
law. But applicant no.1 requested her for marriage and
said that he is in love with her. In the complaint, it is
further stated that on the pretext of marriage, applicant
made physical relations with the respondent against her
consent and started living together. When respondent
asked him for marriage, applicant no.1 made excuses
and when she moved a complaint before SDM on
05.04.2022, applicant no.1 agreed for marriage. Then,
they got married on 01.07.2022 and also registered their
marriage. Thereafter, in the presence of some friends,
they performed marriage in a temple. After that,
applicant no.1 went to his native place at Uttarkashi on
the pretext of organizing a reception party and assured
her to return on 06th July, but he did not return. When
the respondent went to the house of applicant no.1, he
and his family members misbehaved with her; assaulted
her; used caste coloured remarks; threatened her with
dire consequences and ousted her from their house. The
said complaint of the respondent was ordered to be
registered as complaint case.
3. After registration of complaint, the statement
of respondent was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and statement of one Anjana Rawat was also recorded
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint and
summoned the applicants on 05.02.2023.
2
2025:UHC:3599
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that respondent and her family members were converted
Christian and they also pressurized applicant no.1 to
adopt Christianity, for which, he denied and just to
create pressure, she moved various complaints against
the applicant no.1 to marry her and accordingly, the
marriage was held and the same was registered. He
further submits that since the applicant no.1 was
transferred to Uttarakashi and got a residential quarter
allotted by the department, therefore, respondent got
annoyed with him and moved the present complaint.
Furthermore, the witness examined under Section 202
Cr.P.C. is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident and
there is contradiction in her statement and averment
made in the complaint.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the applicants has raised the serious
disputed question of facts before this Court and the same
can only be examined during course of trial, thus the
present C482 application is liable to be dismissed. He
further stated that the trial court after appreciating the
evidence available on record has rightly summoned the
applicants. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Renuka vs. State of Karnatka and
& other; reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 743.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and carefully perused the entire documents available on
record.
7. From perusal of the complaint FIR as well as
the summoning order, prima facie, this Court is of the
view that the commission of cognizable offence is made
out against the applicants. Hence, the cognizance has
3
2025:UHC:3599
rightly been taken by the learned trial court and the
applicants have rightly been summoned.
8. In this view of the matter, this Court does not
want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on
the point that the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare
cases. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails
and the same is dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.05.2025
AK
4
[ad_1]
Source link