Praveen and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
This single-judge application allowed quashing of criminal proceedings against two in-laws residing separately but dismissed it against the husband and parents-in-law, who were integral to the victim's matrimonial home, citing failure to meet Section 482 Cr.P.C. tests.
What did the court decide?
Application allowed for applicants no. 4 and 5; dismissed for applicants no. 1, 2, and 3 with direction to decide bail applications.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 170 of 2010
Praveen and others ……. Applicants
versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ……. Respondents
Mr. M.S. Pal. Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Sohail Ahmad Siddiqui, AGA with Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder, for the State / respondent no. 1.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)
By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 23.07.2009, summoning order dated 10.12.2009, as well the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 664 of 2009, State vs Praveen and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar.
- Informant-respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR on 15.04.2009, in police station Laksar against six accused persons, including the applicants, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicants. Cognizance was taken on said charge-sheet and the accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences complained of against them. Aggrieved against the same, the accused-
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be quashed in respect of applicants who constitute a nucleus of the matrimonial home versus those residing separately.
Whether the facts and allegations in the FIR prima facie establish an offence against applicants who are part of the victim's matrimonial home.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to quash proceedings against applicants.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Praveen and others
- respondent
State of Uttarakhand
Coram
U.C. Dhyani
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Uttarakhand HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- C482/170/2010
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court