Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Nafees & Others on 25 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6585
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
25.07.2025 C482/739/2016
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the
applicants through Video conferencing.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht and Mr. B.N. Maulakhi,
learned Deputy A.G. for the State.
3. Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidhya proxy counsel for
Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2.
4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed for quashing the order dated
25.04.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 179
of 2015 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Haridwar, as well as the summoning order dated
31.01.2015 passed in Case No. 504 of 2011, State
Vs. Nafees & Others, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar,
District Haridwar, along with the entire criminal
proceedings of the aforesaid case.
5. Brief facts of the case, as per the record, are
that respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the
applicants and two others alleging that her marriage
with applicant Nafees was solemnized on
17.06.2006 according to Muslim rituals, and a girl
child was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that
soon after marriage, she was subjected to physical
assault and harassment for dowry, and was
eventually ousted from her matrimonial home. She
has been residing at her parental house since then. It
is further alleged that on 25.10.2007 at about 11:00
P.M., her husband Nafees, along with others,
unlawfully entered her parental home with an intent
to kill her, attempted to abduct the minor daughter,
and tried to throttle her. Upon hearing noise, her
mother and neighbors intervened, and the accused
persons fled from the spot. Based on the said F.I.R.,
the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet
against the applicants, on which the learned
Magistrate took cognizance and passed the
impugned summoning order dated 31.01.2015.
2025:UHC:6585
Hence, this application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that the matter arises out of matrimonial
discord and that the applicants are relatives of
respondent no.2 who have been falsely implicated. It
is argued that the charge sheet was filed only against
Nafees and his mother Smt. Kamarjahan, and not the
other applicants. Nevertheless, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance against all accused
persons without judicial application of mind.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that respondent no.2 voluntarily left
the matrimonial home, and there are contradictions
between the contents of the F.I.R. and the testimony
of PW-2. It is also contended that some applicants
reside outside the village and were not involved in
the alleged incident. Importantly, Nafees and Smt.
Kamarjahan, who are husband and mother-in-law of
respondent no.2, have already been acquitted by the
learned trial court from the charges under Sections
498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, by order dated 23.11.2023.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel would
vehemently oppose the application and would
submit that serious allegations of assault have been
made. However, he admits that the trial court has
acquitted the main accused, i.e., Nafees and Smt.
Kamarjahan, from the charges under Sections 498-
A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 also
supports the summoning order but does not dispute
the acquittal of the main accused.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
11. A perusal of the judgment dated 23.11.2023
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Laksar reveals that both Nafees and Smt.
Kamarjahan have been acquitted on the basis of a
detailed and reasoned order after due consideration
of the evidence on record, including the statements
of witnesses and respondent no.2.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of
judgments, has consistently held that in matrimonial
disputes where specific allegations are levelled only
2025:UHC:6585
against the husband and mother-in-law, and the main
accused are subsequently acquitted, continuation of
criminal proceedings against the remaining co-
accused serves no useful purpose.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, 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 Dara Lakshmi Narayana
v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, the
Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that criminal
proceedings against in-laws without specific
allegations amount to misuse of the legal process.
14. In the present case, the allegations made in
the complaint are vague and do not disclose specific
acts of cruelty or demand of dowry against the
present applicants. 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.
15. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal
proceedings to continue against the applicants would
be an abuse of the process of law.
16. Accordingly, 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.
17. The order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 179 of 2015, and the
summoning order dated 31.01.2015 passed in Case
No. 504 of 2011, State Vs. Nafees & Others,
pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, are hereby
quashed.
18. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed.
19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
25.07.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:6585