[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Suman Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 16 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.141 of 2020
Smt. Suman Sharma ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Another .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State/Respondent No.1.
Ms. Iram Zeba, learned counsel holding brief of Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta,
learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the CrPC has been
instituted by Smt. Suman Sharma seeking quashing of the charge sheet
dated 18.06.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 31.10.2019, and
the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5645 of 2019 (State v. Smt.
Suman Sharma), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun, under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
2. The dispute arises from an FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2, Shri
Sharat Chandra Sindhwani, on 01.03.2018 at P.S. Dalanwala,
Dehradun, alleging that the Applicant falsely claimed to be his wife,
and based on a forged electricity bill, obtained an Aadhaar card
showing him as her husband to usurp his property.
3. Before the said FIR, the Applicant had filed an application under
Section 156(3) CrPC on 18.07.2017, seeking registration of a case
against Respondent No. 2, alleging denial of marriage and cruelty. On
the following day, i.e., 19.07.2017, the Applicant also initiated
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5216
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, which are pending.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the genesis of the
present criminal proceedings is rooted in a matrimonial dispute. It is
contended that the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 were married on
12.04.2008 in accordance with Hindu rites at Arya Samaj Mandir,
Delhi. However, after a few years of cordial relations, the Respondent
No. 2 allegedly started denying the existence of such a marriage and
subjected the Applicant to acts of cruelty and emotional distress.
5. It is submitted that due to such denial and mistreatment, the
Applicant was constrained to approach the Magistrate through an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 18.07.2017, seeking
registration of a criminal case. On the following day, she filed an
application under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. These actions, according to
the learned Counsel, predate the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 and
form the foundation of the Applicant's claim that the FIR is a
retaliatory measure aimed at pressurizing the Applicant to abandon her
matrimonial claims.
6. The Applicant contends that the FIR dated 01.03.2018, registered
as Case Crime No. 52 of 2018 under Sections 420 and 465 IPC (later
converted to Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC), is a malafide attempt to
give a criminal colour to a civil matrimonial dispute. It is argued that
the Respondent No. 2 has never initiated proceedings before a
competent court to declare the alleged marriage as null and void. Thus,
his denial of the marriage lacks legal force and instead forms the core
of a civil dispute for which the remedy lies before the Family Court.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5216
7. It is further urged that even if the allegations in the FIR are
accepted in their entirety, the offences alleged under Sections 465, 468,
and 471 IPC are not attracted. The essential ingredients of forgery--
such as preparation of a false document with dishonest intent to cause
harm or wrongful gain, and its usage as a genuine document--are not
made out. The Aadhaar card in question was not relied upon in any
judicial or governmental proceedings to the prejudice of the
Respondent No. 2. In any case, the marriage certificate was based on a
ceremony that the Applicant claims to have participated in. Thus, the
criminal intent necessary to constitute forgery is absent.
8. Learned Counsel also submits that the investigation conducted by
the police was mechanical and one-sided. The charge sheet is based
solely on the statement of Respondent No. 2 and does not reflect an
independent, fair, or comprehensive inquiry. The police did not
examine neutral or material witnesses cited by the Applicant and failed
to consider the pending domestic violence proceedings, thereby
ignoring the broader factual matrix.
9. It is lastly contended that the impugned cognizance/summoning
order dated 31.10.2019 has been passed in a cyclostyled, non-speaking
manner, without any application of judicial mind. The learned
Magistrate, it is argued, did not satisfy the legal requirement of
assessing whether prima facie ingredients of the offences are disclosed
based on the material submitted. Hence, the order suffers from legal
infirmity and warrants interference.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 vehemently
denies the Applicant's marriage claim and submits that no such
ceremony ever took place. It is argued that the Respondent is legally
married to one Smt. Shail Bala Sindhwani, with whom he has a son.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5216
The purported marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir,
Delhi, is challenged as being a forged and fabricated document.
11. In support, reliance is placed upon a letter dated 12.09.2018
issued by the President of the Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, which
declares the alleged certificate null and void and disowns the authority
of the issuing body, Arya Samaj Marriage Mandal, Jamuna Bazar,
Delhi. Further, a forensic analysis report dated 10.04.2023 issued by
Hawk Eye Forensics, Noida, allegedly confirms that the signatures on
the certificate are forged. It is contended that the entire document is a
sham, created to misappropriate Respondent No. 2's property.
12. Learned Counsel states that the Aadhaar card relied upon by the
Applicant was obtained by misusing the electricity bill of the
Respondent's residence. The address and marital details were altered to
falsely reflect that the Respondent was her spouse, with the objective of
creating a legal and documentary trail to stake a claim over his
immovable property. The UIDAI, after due inquiry, suspended the said
Aadhaar card. A writ petition filed by Respondent No. 2 before this
Hon'ble Court seeking such suspension was disposed of accordingly.
13. It is further submitted that the charge sheet dated 18.06.2019 was
filed after due investigation by a competent police officer. Statements
were recorded under Section 161 CrPC from Respondent No. 2, Smt
during the investigation. Hemlata and Dharma Pal Arya (President of
the Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha), all of whom corroborated the
prosecution version and discredited the Applicant's claim. These
statements, it is urged, were sufficient to form a prima facie case.
14. The learned Counsel asserts that the Applicant is attempting to
pre-empt trial by seeking quashing at the threshold. The disputed issues
raised by her, such as the validity of marriage and the genuineness of
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5216
documents,are matters of evidence, which require trial and cannot be
summarily adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC.
15. Learned AGA appearing for the State submits that the material
collected during the investigation, including the oral statements and
documentary evidence, clearly discloses the commission of offences
under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC. The final report was filed only
after careful examination of the evidence, and there was no material
irregularity or illegality in the investigation process.
16. The learned AGA also submits that the Applicant has been unable
to demonstrate any patent illegality, malafide, or abuse of process
sufficient to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The
disputed factual contentions ought to be decided in the course of the
trial. It is thus prayed that the petition be dismissed.
17. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
18. At the heart of the dispute lies whether the Applicant's claim to
have been married to Respondent No. 2 is genuine or fabricated. That
question, however, cannot be determined solely based on pleadings in a
Section 482 petition. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after
examining the charge sheet, the statements recorded under Section 161
CrPC, and the supporting documents. No material suggests that such
cognizance has been taken in violation of statutory provisions or
without application of judicial mind.
19. The law relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down seven illustrative
categories in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings. These include (i) where the
allegations do not prima facie disclose any offence, (ii) where the
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5216
allegations are manifestly absurd or inherently improbable, (iii) where
there is an express legal bar to the institution of proceedings, and (iv)
where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
of wreaking vengeance.
20. In the case at hand, this Court is not satisfied that the case falls
under any of the Bhajan Lal categories. On the contrary, there is
material in the form of statements under Section 161 CrPC, expert
opinion regarding forgery, institutional communications from Delhi
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, and conduct of the Applicant in procuring an
Aadhaar card using Respondent No. 2's address and name, all of which
cumulatively disclose a prima facie case warranting trial.
21. It is also essential to underscore the distinction between a civil
wrong and a criminal offence. While it is true that matrimonial disputes
often give rise to overlapping civil and criminal proceedings, it is
equally trite that the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude the
initiation of criminal prosecution where the facts disclose the
commission of an offence. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, the
mere pendency of a civil dispute is not grounds for quashing criminal
proceedings if the ingredients of the offence are otherwise satisfied.
22. For an offence under Section 465 IPC (forgery), it must be shown
that the accused made a false document or part thereof to cause damage
or injury, or to support a false claim. Section 468 IPC deals with
forgery for the purpose of cheating, and Section 471 IPC criminalises
the use of such forged documents as genuine. The evidence collected
by the investigating agency, including the cancellation of the Aadhaar
card and forensic findings of forgery, prima facie attracts the
application of these provisions.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr -
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5216
23. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the case diary and the
material submitted, has formed a judicial opinion that a prima facie
case is made out. The impugned summoning order dated 31.10.2019 is
not mechanical or non-speaking. There is no demonstrable illegality or
impropriety in the process so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC.
24. This Court is also mindful of the principle that inherent
jurisdiction is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. The
High Court does not sit in appeal over the sufficiency or reliability of
evidence, which are matters for trial. Interference at the pre-trial stage
is permissible only where there is a glaring legal defect or abuse of
judicial process. The facts of the present case do not disclose such
circumstances.
ORDER
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
16.06.2025
NR/ Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
NITESH
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988a
d93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e40
1cf436bdce9fb,
RAWAT
postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E
89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324
FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C,
cn=NITESH RAWAT
Date: 2025.06.24 11:10:15 +05’30’
7
Criminal Misc. Application No.141of 2020, Suman Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr –
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_2]
Source link