[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 29 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 06.08.2025
Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.1378 of 2019
Pramod Kumar ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Mr. Bharat Tewari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has challenged the cognizance/summoning order
dated 08.08.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case
No.526 of 2017 State Vs. Pramod Kumar, under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, as well as the entire proceedings of
aforementioned Criminal Case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant and
respondent No.2 got married on 19.01.2012 as per Hindu
Rites and Rituals. After residing for some time in
matrimonial house, due to some marital discord,
respondent No.2 left her matrimonial house and started
living at her parental house. Thereafter, respondent No.2
lodged an FIR No.51 of 2015 dated 11.02.2015 against the
applicant and his family members for the aforementioned
Sections. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar took cognizance of the matter
and summoned the applicant for trial.
2
3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant
submits that respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR on the
basis of concocted and false story against the applicant and
his family members. She, being a short tempered lady,
used to quarrel on petty issues without any rhyme and
reason and also did not do any household work. She
further submits that the applicant neither demanded any
dowry nor treated respondent No.2 with cruelty. She also
submits that there is no specific allegation against the
applicant in the FIR and the allegations leveled against him
are general in nature.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant further
contends that entire story in the FIR is based upon
committing cruelty on account of dowry, however, during
investigation, there was no evidence found that any dowry
was demanded by the applicant, which clearly shows that
the whole story in the FIR is false and merely a tactic to
implicate the applicant and his family members falsely. She
also contends that despite the continued efforts by the
applicant to reconcile with his wife-respondent No.2, she
repeatedly refused to join her matrimonial life. She also
contends that respondent No.2 has also been displaying
unusual behavior in her school, indicative of mental
temperament.
5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant further
submits that due to such unfortunate circumstances and
the complete absence of any possibility of reconciliation
between applicant and respondent No.2, the applicant was
left with no option but to initiate divorce proceedings,
which was later on granted by the learned Family Court. In
light of this, continuation of the proceedings would amount
to an abuse of process of law and lead to unnecessary
litigation.
3
6. It is vehemently argued by learned senior
counsel for the applicant that the charge-sheet has been
filed in a mechanical manner without proper investigation.
She further argued that learned Judicial Magistrate
without application of judicial mind and in a routine
manner has taken cognizance against the applicant and
summoned him for trial.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
the Investigating Officer only after completing a proper
investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. He also submits
that learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the
prima-facie evidences, rightly took the cognizance and
thereafter summoned the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 relying
upon the counter affidavit submits that all the facts stated
by respondent No.2 in the FIR are real and true. He also
submits that since the solemnization of marriage with the
applicant, there were demands for dowry by the applicant
and his family members. He further submits that
respondent No.2 was subjected to immense cruelty and
pain at the hands of applicant and his family members and
she was eventually forced to leave her matrimonial house.
9. He further contends that respondent No.2 was
the one who made every effort to save her matrimonial life
and the averment made by the applicant that he made
efforts to save the marriage is not true and further
contradicted by the fact that the applicant was the one,
who had filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, in the year 2019.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is
of the view that it is evident from the facts of the case that
the marriage between respondent No.2 and applicant has
already been dissolved, therefore, it would not be in the
4
interest of justice to permit the continuation of criminal
proceedings, which would only result in extended litigation.
Moreover, the fact that respondent No.2 and applicant are
no more in a marital relationship, continuation of
proceedings against the applicant would constitute abuse
of process of law. Therefore, the ends of justice would be
better served if the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 526 of
2017 are quashed. In view of the foregoing facts and
circumstances and in order to prevent abuse of process of
law against the applicant, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present case is a fit case for the exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.526 of 2017 State Vs. Pramod Kumar, under
Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
stand quashed qua the applicant. Resultantly, the FIR
No.51 of 2015 dated 11.02.2015 stands quashed qua the
applicant.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.08.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f
NEGI
9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83
D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.08.29 15:09:55 +05’30’
[ad_2]
Source link