Uttarakhand High Court
Ravinder Kaur & Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 5 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.734 of 2022
Ravinder Kaur & another .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another .........Respondents
Presence:
Mr. S.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned counsel
for the applicants.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Rachit Manglik and Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel for respondent
no.2.
Judgment reserved on 08.05.2025
Judgment delivered on 05.06.2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present C-482 application,
the applicants have challenged the impugned charge-
sheet dated 25.09.2019 as well as impugned summoning
order dated 4.02.2020 and 23.03.2022 passed by Second
Additional civil Judge/Learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, UdhamSingh Nagar in Criminal Case No.138
of 2021 (earlier Criminal Case No. 229/220 in the court
of Learned ACJM, Kashipur), State vs. Gursewak Singh
and another, under Sections 323/498-A/506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act along with entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case.
2. The facts in brief are that applicant no.2 got
married to respondent no.2 on 06.12.2014 as per Sikh
Rites and Ceremonies. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on
27.01.2018 by respondent no.2 alleging therein that both
the applicants since the very inception of marriage used
to harass her with regard to demand of dowry. She
alleged that the applicants used to demand one flat, car
and gold bangles from her.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the FIR has been lodged by respondent no.2 against
1
the applicants on wholly untrue and concocted facts. He
further stated that respondent no.2 is a cunning lady
and it is a part of her modus operandi to marry innocent
men and thereafter, demand huge alimony in divorce.
He stated that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of
respondent no.2 to harass and extort money from the
applicants. He submitted that the applicant no.2 and
respondent no.2 got married through Shaadi.com where
respondent no.2 stated herself as never married whereas
the truth is that she is a divorcee and has extorted Rs.20
lacs from her ex husband in the name of alimony.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that after the marriage, applicant no.2 used to
live with respondent no.2 in an independent flat. But,
respondent no.2 wanted to live in a posh colony and
used to quarrel with applicant no.2 for the said purpose.
She on the pretext of getting due care from her mother in
the course of pregnancy went to Kashipur and returned
back only after one year. After some time, she again left
the house and started living in Kashipur with their son.
On inquiring, respondent no.2 told the applicant no.2
that she will come back and live with him only if he takes
any house on rent in posh colony. Thereafter, he
succumbed to respondent no.2’s demand and rented a
house in a posh colony but he had to soon vacate it as
the owner wanted to sell it. Respondent no.2 initially
agreed to live in the earlier flat on the condition that
applicant no.1 will not interfere in her life. But
respondent no.2 again on 01.07.2018 along with the
minor child left for Kashipur along with all the valuables
and cash in the absence of applicant no.2 and again
stated that she will only return if he rents a house in a
posh colony. Thereafter, applicant no.2 preferred a
2
restitution of conjugal rights application which was
decreed ex parte in his favour. Respondent no.2 was
furious because of this and filed an application under
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before ACJM,
Kashipur. In the above stated application, respondent
no.2 in her cross-examination herself admitted that she
took Rs.20 lacs from her ex husband in pretext of
divorce. She also admitted that she used to live in a
separate floor with her husband and applicant no.1 used
to live in another floor. She also admitted that she wants
applicant no.2 to buy a new house for them in a posh
colony and then only she will return to her. She also
admitted that she potrayed herself as never married in
Shaadi.com. The learned counsel for the applicants
submits that her conduct itself shows that she is in habit
of committing fraud and extorting money from innocent
men. He submitted that there is no medical evidence to
prove that she was subjected to cruelty by the
applicants. He also stated that the Investigation Officer
without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts
mechanically submitted the charge-sheet without
appreciating any evidence and the learned Judicial
Magistrate without applying his judicial mind has issued
summons against the applicants on the basis of the
charge-sheet.
5. Though not pleaded in the C482
application, the learned counsel for the applicants
vehemently argued that proceedings under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act instituted by respondent no.2
has been disbelieved and dismissed by the concerned
court below and therefore, initiation of the impugned
criminal proceeding on similar set of facts is nothing but
abuse of process of law. He also raised doubts on the
3
territorial jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur as the alleged incident of cruelty and
harassment happened in Ludhiyana, Punjab.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
submits that the Investigation Officer after due
investigation and on the basis of statements given by the
respondent no.2 and other witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has rightfully submitted the charge-sheet and
the learned court below has done no illegality in issuing
summons against the applicant.
7. Respondent no.2 in her counter affidavit
submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings is
based on true facts and not concocted facts and
circumstances. She further states that it is not the case
that she wants to grab money from the applicants but
applicants instead want her to bring money in name of
dowry. She further submitted that the applicants were
well aware of the fact that she was a divorcee and had
evil eye on the Rs.20 lacs which she got from her ex
husband as alimony. She also stated that she was not
living independently with her husband and there was
constant interference by her in-laws. She submitted that
applicant no.1 used to constantly harass and humiliate
her as applicant no.1 thought that she was ugly and
used to constantly demand dowry. She further stated
that it was the constant torture and harassment meted
out towards her from the hands of the applicants which
forced her to live in Kashipur.
8. The applicants in their rejoinder affidavit
stated that right from the very inception of marriage,
respondent no.2 had malafide intention which is evident
from the fact that she potrayed herself as a never
4
married person in Shaadi.com. They further submitted
that the proceedings based on the same set of facts as
alleged in the FIR, instituted under Section 12 Domestic
Violence Act has been disbelieved and dismissed vide
order dated 22.07.2024 by ACJM, Kashipur and also
proceedings instituted on the same set of facts under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Family Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, have been
disbelieved and dismissed as far as respondent no.2 is
concerned.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire
material available on record. As far as the contention of
learned counsel for applicants regarding territorial
jurisdiction of Ld. JM Kashipur is concerned it is manifest
from the facts that the respondent no. 2 used to live there
as it was her parental home and it is a settled principle of
law that the offence under Section 498A is a continuing
offence and if the act of cruelty continues even while, the
woman is living at her parents house, the offence is triable
by both the Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the act
of continuing offence of cruelty has been committed i.e. at
matrimonial home or the parents house. In the instant case
in hand it is prima facie evident that mental cruelty was
still persisting in respondent no 2’s mind while she was
staying at her parental home as the demand for valuables
was still being persistently being made by the applicants
This prima facie at this stage shows that the applicants
continued to cause harassment to respondent no. 2 with a
view to coerce her to satisfy their unlawful demand.
Therefore, prima facie it appears that she has been
subjected to cruelty at Kashipur within the definition of
“cruelty” given in the explanation of Section 498A I.P.C. On
taking into consideration the F.I.R. and the papers under
5
investigation i.e. the statements of witnesses, it appears
that act of maltreatment and humiliation by the petitioners
continued even while respondent no. 2 was residing with
her parents. Therefore, I am of the view that Clause (c)
of Section 178, Criminal Procedure Code is clearly attracted
and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur has also
territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners
under Section 498A, I.P.C. which is a continuing offence.
Moreover, the contention of the applicants counsel
regarding the impugned proceedings being mere abuse of
process of law just because proceedings filed by respondent
no.2 u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act, 2005 falls flat on its
face by bare perusal of subsection 2 of Section 12 of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which clearly provides that
relief provided under section 12 is without prejudice to the
right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or
damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic
violence the scope of both the Acts and provisions of IPC
are different . The reliefs provided therein are also different.
10. Since, the offences lodged against the applicants
are very serious in nature and prima-facie a case is made
out 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 applicant.
11. 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:-
6
“33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, 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;
12. 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. Further the case doesn’t fall in
the category of rarest of rare cases so as to compel this
court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction vested under
section 482 Cr.P.C.
13. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.06.2025
PN
7