Uttarakhand High Court
Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5048
Reserved on : 15.05.2025
Delivered on : 17.06.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1520 OF 2018
Manjeesh Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 437 OF 2019
Sudesh Kumari ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr.
Tejas Aggarwal, Advocate.
Counsel for State : Mr. Vipul Painuli, A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
These are two connected applications instituted
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1520 of 2018 has been
filed by Mr. Manjeesh Kumar Singh, the husband of the
complainant, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated
15.07.2015 and all proceedings arising out of Criminal Case
No. 2515 of 2015, "State vs. Manjeesh Kumar Singh," pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
2. The companion application, Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 437 of 2019, has been filed by Mrs. Sudesh
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
Kumari, mother of the said applicant, seeking similar relief in
respect of the summoning order dated 05.07.2016 passed in
Criminal Case No. 2499 of 2016, titled 'State vs. Sudesh
Kumari'
3. Both applications arise from the same First
Information Report, being FIR No. 230 of 2014, registered at
Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun, under Sections 498-
A, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The FIR was lodged by
Smt. Charu Singh, wife of the applicant in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 1520 of 2018, alleging persistent
cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws on account
of unmet dowry demands.
4. According to the complainant, the marriage between
the parties was solemnized on 19.01.2008 at Najibabad,
District Bijnor, U.P., after which she joined her matrimonial
home. It is alleged that shortly after the marriage, her
husband, the present applicant, and other family members
including his mother (the applicant in Application No. 437 of
2019), began making persistent demands for additional dowry
in the form of a car, plot, and cash, and subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty.
5. The complaint further alleges that during her
pregnancy in 2010, she was assaulted and abused by the
applicants and ultimately forced to leave her matrimonial
home. It is also alleged that her gold and silver ornaments,
given by her parents, were retained by the applicants
unlawfully.
6. Based on the said allegations, the police initially
filed a charge-sheet against Manjeesh Kumar Singh, and
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
subsequently submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against
Sudesh Kumari. Cognizance was taken by the learned trial
court on 15.07.2015 and 05.07.2016, respectively, leading to
the issuance of summons to both applicants to face trial.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1520 of 2018, Mr. Manjeesh Kumar Singh,
submitted that the FIR was lodged in retaliation to a divorce
petition he filed on 31.01.2014 against respondent no. 2 on
the grounds of cruelty. It was argued that the FIR, which was
lodged on 03.09.2014, is an abuse of the process of law and a
counterblast meant to pressurize the applicant.
8. It was further contended that no specific incident
had been alleged to have occurred in Dehradun, and therefore,
the learned Magistrate at Dehradun lacked territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. It was next contended that the complainant had
earlier approached the Noida Police with similar allegations by
way of a written complaint dated 15.04.2011, pursuant to
which an inquiry was conducted, but no FIR was registered. It
was, therefore, submitted that the present FIR is barred by
limitation and is vitiated by suppression of material facts. It
was further submitted that the allegations, taken at face value,
do not disclose a prima facie offence under Sections 498-A,
323, or 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and that the proceedings
are liable to be quashed.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, Mrs.
Sudesh Kumari, submitted that she has been falsely implicated
merely on account of being the mother of the complainant's
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
husband, and that no specific overt act has been attributed to
her in the FIR.
11. It was argued that the allegations are vague and
general in nature, and there is no material to support the
charge sheet filed against her.
12. Learned counsel submitted that the supplementary
charge-sheet filed against her on 04.04.2016 was a belated
and mala fide action taken under pressure from the
complainant. It was pointed out that she had cooperated with
the investigation earlier and was not arrested. Yet, shewas
subsequently summoned by the trial court vide order dated
05.07.2016 without due application of judicial mind.
13. It was further submitted that neither the FIR nor
the statements of witnesses contain any allegation of an
incident involving the applicant having occurred within the
territorial jurisdiction of Dehradun. It was, therefore,
contended that the proceedings instituted at Dehradun are
without jurisdiction and cause undue hardship to the applicant,
an elderly lady residing in Hyderabad. Accordingly, the
applicant seeks to quash the summoning order and the entire
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2499 of 2016.
14. Learned State Counsel opposed both applications
and submitted that the FIR discloses specific and repeated acts
of cruelty, physical assault, and dowry demands against both
applicants.
15. It was submitted that during the investigation,
statements of the complainant and other witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and credible material was
found, leading to the filing of a charge-sheet against the
husband and a supplementary charge sheet against the
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
mother-in-law. It was further submitted that the offences are
cognizable and the proceedings cannot be said to be without
basis or merit.
16. It was contended that the submission regarding
territorial jurisdiction is misplaced, as the complainant was
residing in Dehradun when the FIR was lodged and had also
approached the Women Helpline there on 11.07.2014.
17. It was pointed out that under Section 178 of the
CrPC, an offence that is continuing in nature or partly
committed in more than one jurisdiction can be tried at any
such place, including Dehradun, where the complainant was
residing after being allegedly ousted from her matrimonial
home.
18. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2,
Smt. Charu Singh reiterated that the present FIR is not a
counterblast to the divorce petition but a consequence of
prolonged physical and mental abuse. It was submitted that
the complainant made several efforts to resolve the issues,
including approaching family members and legal aid
mechanisms, but was compelled to lodge the FIR after
continued harassment, especially during and after her
pregnancy. It was further submitted that specific acts of
cruelty, including threats, abuse, and dowry demands, were
made by both applicants.
19. It was also submitted that the complaint to Noida
Police in 2011 was merely an initial attempt to seek protection
and did not result in any FIR, charge-sheet, or conclusive
finding. Hence, it cannot be treated as the first information or
a bar to the current FIR. The complainant contended that the
entire case involves a continuing offence spanning multiple
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
locations, including Ahmedabad, Noida, and Dehradun, and
hence, the proceedings instituted in Dehradun are legally
maintainable.
20. Respondent no. 2 further argued that both the
learned Magistrate and the revisional court have passed
detailed orders after due application of mind. The petitioners
have already availed remedies available under the CrPC and
failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice or gross abuse
of process that would warrant interference under Section 482
CrPC.
21. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused
the records.
22. At the outset, it is to be noted that the allegations
contained in FIR No. 230 of 2014 are not merely vague or
general in nature but are supported by specific assertions of
physical cruelty, dowry-related harassment, and unlawful
retention of stridhan articles.
23. The complainant has alleged that such acts were
committed by her husband (the applicant in Application No.
1520 of 2018) and her mother-in-law (the applicant in
Application No. 437 of 2019) from the early stages of marriage
until her ouster from the matrimonial home. The charges, as
outlined in the FIR and substantiated through the statements
recorded under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie disclose the
commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498-A, 323,
504 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
24. With respect to the jurisdictional objection raised by
the applicants, it is necessary to reiterate that Section 178 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure permits a trial to be held at any
place where the offence was committed wholly or in part, or
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
cases of continuing offences, at any place where such offence
continues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State
of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, and Rupali Devi v. State of
U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384, held that cruelty inflicted upon a
woman at her matrimonial home has consequences that
continue to impact her even at her parental home, and the
court at the place of her current residence would have
jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Section 498-A IPC.
25. The complainant's allegation that she was forced to
leave her matrimonial home and compelled to take refuge at
Dehradun, where she ultimately lodged the FIR and
approached the Women Helpline, brings the case squarely
within the ambit of Section 178(b) and (c) CrPC. Accordingly,
this Court finds no merit in the contention that the learned
Magistrate at Dehradun lacked territorial jurisdiction.
26. The applicants' submission regarding an earlier
complaint made in 2011 to the Noida Police also does not
advance their case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779,
clarified that the filing of an earlier complaint which did not
culminate in prosecution does not bar registration of a later FIR
when the offence is continuing or when fresh circumstances
come to light.
27. In the present case, the FIR is not a mechanical
reproduction of the earlier complaint but alleges continued acts
of cruelty, dowry demand, and unlawful withholding of
ornaments well beyond 2011. Thus, it cannot be treated as
barred or mala fide on this ground alone.
28. It is now well settled that the jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
circumspection. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative
categories where the High Court may exercise such jurisdiction
to quash proceedings, but also cautioned that where the
allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the inherent power
should not be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
29. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reaffirmed that once an FIR discloses an offence, the
High Court should not conduct a meticulous examination of the
evidence or pre-empt the trial process, particularly at the stage
of cognizance or summons. It emphasized that the accused's
defences should ordinarily be raised before the trial court at
the appropriate stage.
30. In the present case, both applicants have raised
factual disputes, prior litigation, and assertions of mala fide,
which are triable issues not amenable to summary adjudication
in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The revisional court
has already examined the summoning orders in both matters
and found no irregularity or miscarriage of justice. This Court
also finds that the trial court, while issuing process, has
applied its judicial mind to the allegations and accompanying
material, and has recorded prima facie satisfaction to summon
the accused.
31. The contention that the summoning order is
mechanical or arbitrary is not borne out from the record. In
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that while a summoning order must reflect
application of mind, it need not contain elaborate reasons.
What is required is that the Magistrate must have considered
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, "Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another" with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, "Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another".
Ashish Naithani J.
.
2025:UHC:5048
the material before forming an opinion. That standard is
satisfied in the present case.
32. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire
proceedings does not satisfy the legal threshold for invoking
the Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Both
applications lack merit and do not disclose any exceptional
circumstances warranting interference.
ORDER
Given the foregoing discussion and legal position,
this Court considers that both applications fail to meet the
threshold for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
1520 of 2018 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 437
of 2019, both instituted under Section 482 CrPC, are
dismissed.
___________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
SB
9
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2018, “Manjeesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another” with Criminal Misc. Application No. 437 of 2019, “Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another”.
Ashish Naithani J.
.