Uttarakhand High Court
Aakash Chand And Others –Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 904 of 2015
Aakash Chand and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
Judgment reserved on 25.07.2025
Judgment delivered on 01.08.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned DAG for the State.
Ms. Suraiya Naz, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma,
learned counsel for the complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By means of the present misc. application, the
applicants seek to quash and set aside the charge sheet
dated 17.03.2013, summoning order dated 20.03.2013
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.14668 of 2013,
State Vs. Sanjay Chand @ Bunty and others, under
Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. The case, as pleaded by the applicants, is that
the complaint was filed by respondent/complainant,
which resulted in lodging of the FIR No.92 of 2012, under
Section 304B of IPC, at P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham
1
Singh Nagar with the allegations that the daughter of
respondent No. 2, namely, Shilpi was married to Sanjay
Chand (applicant no.3) on 27-12-07 as per Christian
Rites and Rituals; that, the complainant/respondent No.
2 spent about Rs. 10 lac in the marriage of her daughter
and gave ornaments, clothes, house hold articles
amounting to Rs.2 lac, but the in-laws were not happy
and demanded Santro Car along with five lac rupees.
Due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, her-in-
laws, husband and brother-in-law had been torturing her
right from the beginning of her marriage and had
threatened her of dire consequences; that, in the
intervening night of 25.08.2012, her daughter was
admitted in Sushila Tewari, Government Hospital,
Haldwani, where her situation found being critical, she
was referred to higher centre; that, thereafter, applicant
no.3 -Sanjay brought the daughter of
complainant/respondent No. 2 to Meerut, who died
enroute. The complainant/respondent No. 2 called
Doctor Amit Kumar residing in his neighborhood, who on
examining her daughter and declared dead. Applicant
no.3-Sanjay told him that his daughter was ill from many
days and Doctor advised him to take her to Meerut, but
she died enroute. Therefore, applicant no.3-Sanjay gave
an application to the Padri St. Thomas Church on 28-6-
12 and buried his daughter. The complainant and his
2
family members on seeing the corpse of the daughter got
very disturbed and lost senses. Then friend of
complainant’s son Rahul resident of Haldwani informed
on telephone that Shilpi was not ill, but she has been
killed by administering poison and the entire details of
the admission and treatment of Shilpi in Sushila Tewari
Government Hospital, is available. Therefore, it was
requested that report be lodged and legal action be taken
against applicants; that, the applicants moved an
application for conducting the post mortem of the
deceased and ultimately the body was exhumed from the
grave and post mortem was conducted on 30.09.2012;
that, in the post mortem, the cause of death was not
known, therefore, her viscera was sent to the FSL,
Lucknow.
3. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed
on 17.03.2013 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and
u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of the
charge sheet, applicants were summoned.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that the viscera report was received from the
Forensic Laboratories, Lucknow on 21.04.2014 and no
traces of poison in the viscera was deducted. He would
further submit that the death of complainant’s daughter
was caused due to some illness and not due to poisoning,
3
as was confirmed by the report of the FSL. He would
further submit that there is no allegation regarding soon
before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry in the absence of which offence under Section
304B of IPC would not be made out and the applicants
have falsely been implicated in the present case. In order
to buttress his contention, he has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Rajiv
Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor‘, reported in
(2013) 3 SCC 330, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in
para 30 has held that ‘based on the factors canvassed in
the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised
by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On this basis, he has
argued that steps mentioned in the subject judgment, the
answers to all these steps are in affirmative, therefore, no
case under Section 304B is made out against the
applicants.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and
learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the
deceased was administered poison due to which death
was caused to her; that, the deceased was hale and
4
hearty and was not suffering from any illness, and if she
was suffering from any illness then the applicants could
have submitted prescription and the name of the Doctor
under which she was undergoing treatment, the fact
about illness of the deceased was also never intimated to
the complainant by the accused.
6. Learned counsel for the State would also draw
the attention of this Court to discharge summary of
Sushila Tewari Government Hospital, Haldwani, wherein
‘A/H/O/ (alleged history of) poisoning on 25.08.2012 at
1:30 AM, OP poisoning with left hand with shock and the
discharge summary would also reveal that patient is
referred from US Nagar came with alleged H/O intake of
some unknown substance at 1:30 am on 25.08.2012’.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant would
submit that the applicants used to harass the deceased
and were repeatedly asking for money and car. She
would further submit that respondent no.2/complainant
has submitted the details of the money that he has
transferred in the account of the applicant no.3. She also
invited the attention of this Court to Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act, which raises a presumption against
the applicants. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act
reads as under:-
5
113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.
When the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and it
is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.
8. As regard to the negative report of FSL
regarding traces of poison in the viscera, learned counsel
for the complainant submitted that since the body was
exhumed from the grave after a long period, therefore,
she has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Buddhadeb Saha and others vs. The
State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No.1692 of 2022
dated 13.09.2023, the relevant para of the judgment is
extracted below:-
“30. Thus, the absence of detection of poison
in the viscera report alone need not be treated
as a conclusive proof of the fact that the
victim has not died of poison.”
9. Since the allegations raised in the FIR and the
material collected by the Investigating Officer before filing
of the charge sheet indicates that, prima facie, the
ingredients of 304B of IPC are made out against the
applicants, the marriage was solemnized on 27.12.2007,
while the death was occurred on 28.06.2012 i.e. within
seven years of their marriage; that, the cause of death
6
was unnatural and the allegations regarding the
harassment of the deceased for demand of dowry are,
prima facie, made out during the investigation, therefore,
all these facts are to be adjudicated after adducing
evidence, which is matter of trial and cannot be
adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. It is trite that the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
11. A two Judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in HMT Watches Limited Vs. M.A. Abida (2015) 11
SCC 776 has held that inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be extended for determining
question of facts, it is only for the trial Court to
determine the disputed questions of fact after examining
the evidence on record and interference by this Court
with regards to factual questions is impermissible in law.
12. In the considered view of this Court, all the
grounds taken in the present petition are to the
adjudicated after adducing evidence, which cannot be
decided by this Court in this application under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
13. In view of the discussions made above and
7
law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the
considered view that it is not a fit case in which the High
Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
14. Accordingly, present C482 application lacks
merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim order,
if any, stands vacated.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the
court concerned for ensuring compliance.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 01.08.2025
BS
BALWANT
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02f
e2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553D
E5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.04 18:25:20 +05’30’
8