Uttarakhand High Court
Amarjeet And Others -Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1559 of 2017
07th August, 2025
Amarjeet and Others -Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another -Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.N. Molaki, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
None is present for respondent no. 2/complainant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by
the applicants challenging the summoning order dated
15.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-1st, District Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 2812
of 2017, State Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others, under Sections
498-A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
and the entire proceedings arising out from it.
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that:-
Marriage between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no.
2 was solemnized on 19.05.2014. From the wedlock, a
child was born on 20.04.2015, but, just after one month
from the date child was born, the relationship between
the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 got estranged,
2due to which, respondent no. 2 left the house of the
applicant no. 1 and they started living separately since
12.07.2015. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed a
complaint against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-
law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, wherein, she has
submitted that she was harassed by her husband and in-
laws for demand of dowry. On a complaint, an FIR was
lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No. 108 of
2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC
and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation,
charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted to
the Court. Thereafter, against the summoning order
dated 15.06.2017, the applicants were summoned to face
the trial. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred the present
criminal miscellaneous application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
applicants and other relatives have falsely been implicated in
the case, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the
proceedings of the case are allowed to continue against the
applicants. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, has
placed reliance in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of ‘Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another‘ reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472.
3
Paragraph no. 8 of the aforesaid judgments is extracted as
hereunder:-
“8. Referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., Savitri
Devi v. Ramesh Chand, it was submitted that misuse of the
provision is judicially acknowledged and there is need to adopt
measures to prevent such misuse. The Madras High Court in MP
No. 1 of 2008 in Cr. OP No. 1089 of 2008 dated 4-8-2008 directed
issuance of the following guidelines:
“It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the
enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act
is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same
time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction. Our
experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family
members are implicated and dragged to the police stations.
Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a
number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy
the ego and anger of the complainant. By suitably dealing with
such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a
considerable extent by the Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates
themselves accede to the bare requests of the police without
examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative
effects thereby, the very purpose of the legislation would be
defeated and the doors of conciliation would be closed forever.
The husband and his family members may have difference of
opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand
are not the answers. The ultimate object of every legal system is
to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.”
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and
perused the records.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, has
held that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they amount
to abuse of the process of law or are based on vague or
omnibus allegations. In the case of ‘Dara Lakshmi Narayana
v. State of Telangana‘, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, the
Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that criminal proceedings
4
against in-laws without specific allegations amount to misuse
of the legal process.
6. After going through the FIR and the chargesheet, it is
revealed that the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have no role to play
in harassing respondent no. 2 for demand of dowry. In the
present case, the allegations made in the complaint are
general and do not disclose specific acts of cruelty or demand
of dowry against applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4. It appears to be a
case of over-implication, wherein the entire family of the
husband has been unnecessarily dragged into criminal
proceedings without substantive material.
7. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings
to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application is
allowed.
9. The summoning order dated 15.06.2017 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, District
Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 2812 of 2017, State Vs.
Amarjeet Singh and Others, under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the entire
5
proceedings arising out from it, is hereby quashed qua the
applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4.
10. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere as regards
the proceedings so far it relates to applicant no. 1 in Criminal
Case No. 2812 of 2017, State Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Others,
under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
07.08.2025
Ujjwal