Uttarakhand High Court
Abhishek Sendhwal And Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-03.03.2025
Judgment delivered on:-09.05.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1762 of 2023
Abhishek Sendhwal and another ........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present C482 application, the
applicants have prayed for quashing of charge sheet dated
27.03.2022 and cognizance order dated 06.10.2022, passed
by learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun in Criminal Case No.6685 of 2022, State Vs.
Abhishek Sendhwal & others, under Sections 498-A and
323 IPC along with entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal
case.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant
no.1 is husband of respondent no.2. They got married on
25.06.2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter two
children were born out of the said wedlock. On 28.08.2021
respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. No.434 of 2021, under
Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC at Police Station Patel
Nagar, District Dehradun with the allegations that
respondent no.2 was subjected to cruelty by applicants.
She also alleged that she was subjected to beating by her
husband-applicant no.1 when she confronted him
regarding his illicit relations with another woman.
1
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicants that the F.I.R. has been filed by respondent no.2
only to torture and harass the applicants which is based on
completely false allegations and concoted facts. He further
submits that the couple has temperamental issues that too
on account of behavior of respondent no.2 herself.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicants that the Investigating Officer did not investigate
the matter properly and submitted the charge sheet under
aforementioned sections in a routine manner and the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate also
summoned the applicants for facing the trial without
applying judicial mind which is nothing but abuse of
process of law.
5. Learned State counsel on the basis of its counter
affidavit submits that investigation was done with utmost
diligence and the veracity of the facts could only be proved
by proper trial. He further submits that statement of
respondent no.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie
prove a case under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC and after
due investigation charge sheet was filed in court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under aforesaid
sections.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 on the
basis of counter affidavit of respondent no.2 submits that
she went to a great length for saving her matrimonial life,
but applicant no.1-husband used to have illicit relations
with other woman and on questioning he used to beat
respondent no.2. He further submitted that the C482
application is not maintainable as the dispute is purely
factual in nature and thus outside scope of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. He also submits that offence under Section 498-A
and 323 of IPC are made out from bare perusal of F.I.R.
2
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire
material available on record. Since, the offences lodged
against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima
facie made out a case against the applicants, it is essential
for the ends of justice that the applicants should be
subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court
should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings,
if prima facie the case is made out against the applicants.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2008) 12
SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:-
“12. This court in a number of cases has laid down
the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for
the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent
abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under
section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to
an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with great caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in this
section itself. Authority of the court exists for the
advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process
leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court,
then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice
by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific
provisions in the Statute.”
8. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure
Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled
at the initial stage. Relevant sub paras of Para 33 of the
said judgment are quoted hereunder:-
“33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed,3
in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage;
33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has
to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is
not required to consider on merits whether or not the
merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence
and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
9. After keeping the above principle in mind, this
Court is of the opinion that as prima facie case is made out
against the applicants and the charge-sheet has been
submitted and the applicants were summoned after
cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case
at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only
be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce
their respective evidences.
10. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
11. Interim order dated 01.09.2023 stands vacated.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.05.2025
SK
4