Yogesh Chandra Pant Vs State of Uttarakhand

By means of the present C482 application, applicants have challenged the cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.06.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Almora in Criminal Case No.567 of 2021 State Vs. Yogesh Pant and Others , for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; charge sheet dated 25.04.2021 arising out of FIR No.02 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 registered at P.S. Someshwar, District Almora; order dated 11.11.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2021 Yogesh Chandra Pant Vs. State ; order dated 06.12.2021 in Criminal Revision No.17 of 2021 Smt. Prem Lata Pant Vs. State and order dated 05.01.2022 in Criminal Revision No.28 of 2021 Gaurav Joshi Vs. State , passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Almora.

¶13

The facts in the nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2-Harsha Pant, against her husband-applicant No.1 and other applicants who are

¶14

1

¶15

2025:UHC:1489 her mother in-law and brother- in-law(cousin), on 22.10.2020 and on the basis of FIR No.02 of 2021, a case crime was registered in Police Station Someshwar under the aforesaid Sections. In the FIR respondent No.2 stated that she married with applicant No.1 on 24.04.2016. It is alleged in the FIR that from the very inception of marriage, respondent No.2 was not treated well by the applicants and just two weeks’ before the day of marriage, applicant No.1 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from her. She further narrated in the FIR a long tale of harassment meted out to her at the hands of the applicants, which further escalated after she delivered a baby girl. The gravamen of the FIR is that the harassment was meted out with the respondent No.2 for the demand of dowry.

¶16

On the said FIR, after investigation against all the applicants, a charge-sheet dated 25.04.2021 was submitted by Investigating Officer and on the aforesaid charge-sheet vide order dated 16.06.2021, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora under the aforesaid Sections and the applicants were summoned for facing the trial. Against the summoning order, revision petitions were filed by the applicants independently before the learned Sessions Judge, Almora, who dismissed all the revision petitions. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the applicants are before this Court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit. He submits that he has no instructions and could not get in touch with respondent No.2 despite multiple attempts.

¶18

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶19

2

¶20

2025:UHC:1489

¶21

applicants that the proceedings have been launched by the respondent No.2 out of a counterblast to the Restitution of Conjugal Rights petition filed by the applicant No.1 against respondent No.2. It is further contended by him that respondent No.2 was inspired by western culture and she was demanding a separate accommodation and didn’t want to live with her in-laws. Thereafter, when applicant No.1 denied for her separate accommodation, respondent No.2, on 11.09.2017, left for Rudrapur, then, straight to Almora on pretext of attending Bhagwat Katha and never returned back.

¶22

It is brought to the notice of this Court that since respondent No.2 was not coming back to her matrimonial house to join her husband, therefore, a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant No.1-husband, which was although later on withdrawn.

¶23

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a divorce petition was also filed by the applicant No.1-husband in the Court of Family Judge, Nainital, which is registered as Divorce Petition No.99 of 2019 Yogesh Pant Vs. Smt. Harsha Pant , which was decreed in favour of the applicant No.1 and divorce on the ground of mental cruelty was granted to applicant No.1, which still subsists and no appeal has been filed against it by the respondent No.2-wife. He further submitted that the truth of the matter is that since, the very beginning, respondent No.2 didn’t want to stay with the applicants and the allegations which she narrated in the FIR, are nothing but a bundle of lie just to falsely implicate the applicants.

¶24

The counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 is on record, in which, respondent No.2 supported

¶25

3

¶26

2025:UHC:1489

¶27

the contents of the FIR and submitted that the case is an example where wife was subjected to physical and mental harassment at the hands of the applicants.

¶28

The applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit, in which, they have stated that charge-sheet was filed in a mechanical manner and the learned CJM, while taking cognizance, failed to appreciate that the alleged incidents in the FIR don’t attract the ingredients of Section 498A and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire documents available on record, coupled with the fact that applicant No.1 has been granted divorce by the learned Family Court, Nainital on the grounds of mental cruelty by respondent No.2, which has not been challenged by the respondent No.2, therefore, it is in the opinion of the this Court that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the FIR, appear to be nothing but an exaggeration. Moreso, when the parties are already divorced, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to quash the FIR for the ends of justice, so that the parties may live peacefully.

¶30

This Court is aware of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but, still from the FIR, it appears that the allegations raised by respondent No.2 in the impugned FIR are only bald statements, which are not supported by any kind of evidence. This Court is of the prima-facie opinion that such incidents, as alleged by the respondent No.2, were a result of strained matrimonial relations between her and applicant No.1 and were mere exaggeration.

¶31

In view of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, the relation between the parties have reached to a place where there is no come back. Thus, the argument

¶32

4

¶33

2025:UHC:1489

¶34

advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings have been launched is counterblast to Restitution of Conjugal Rights petition, which was initiated by applicant No.1, appears to be true.

¶35

In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that such a prosecution needs not to be allowed to continue when the parties have already been granted divorce and the FIR was prima-facie a result of strained matrimonial relations. Respondent no.2 wife has now left with no interest in the matter.

¶36

In view of the above, present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.567 of 2021 State Vs. Yogesh Pant and Others , passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Almora for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the charge-sheet dated 25.04.2021 and FIR No.02 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 registered at P.S. Someshwar, District Almora, also stand quashed. All the impugned judgments and orders passed by learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional court stand quashed.

¶37

Interim order dated 27.01.2022 stands vacated.

¶38

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶39

( Pankaj Purohit, J .) 03.03.2025

¶40

PN

¶41

5

Yogesh Chandra Pant v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Chandra Pant v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Salman Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pyarmid Finmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prashant Gahlot

Akshat Goel Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rafeena Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prakash Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand