Deepak Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Presence For the Applicants : Mr. Vinod Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants For the State : Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶10

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

¶11

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 92 of 2019, titled “Smt. Neetu Bisht v. Deepak Bisht and Others”, which is presently pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First, Gairsain, District Chamoli. Cognisance in the said matter has been taken for offences under Sections 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The applicants are the husband and in-laws of the respondent. 2. It is stated on their behalf that the marriage between applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 25.11.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites. It is submitted that following the marriage, respondent no. 2 resided with her husband and in-laws intermittently and would often leave the matrimonial home on her own. The applicants

¶13

1

¶14

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2586 of 2019, Deepak Bisht & others Vs State and Anr. -

¶15

Ashish Naithani J.

¶16

2025:UHC:3780

¶17

assert that they made repeated efforts to persuade her to return, but she voluntarily chose to stay away.

¶18

It is contended by the applicants that, despite fulfilling all familial responsibilities and never having made any demands or subjected her to cruelty, the respondent No. 2 initiated criminal proceedings purely with the intent to harass them. They submit that the continuation of the criminal case amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and has been initiated with a view to exerting undue pressure and extracting financial or other advantages.

¶19

The applicants further contend that Respondent No. 2 has projected ordinary matrimonial disagreements as criminal misconduct, thereby misusing the criminal justice system. It is asserted that the penal provisions, which are intended to safeguard genuinely aggrieved spouses, have been invoked vindictively in the present case. According to the applicants, the complaint is false, actuated by malice, and driven by ulterior motives. On this premise, they urge this Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings at the inception, in order to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶20

Per contra, it is the case of respondent no. 2 that she was subjected to persistent mental and physical cruelty soon after her marriage. She states that the applicants regularly harassed her in connection with dowry and assaulted her on multiple occasions. According to her, she was forcibly driven out of her matrimonial home

¶21

2

¶22

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2586 of 2019, Deepak Bisht & others Vs State and Anr. -

¶23

Ashish Naithani J.

¶24

2025:UHC:3780

¶25

along with her minor daughter. Despite efforts to seek reconciliation, she was repeatedly denied re-entry and subjected to humiliation.

¶26

Respondent no. 2 alleges that her attempts to seek help from local authorities met with limited success, compelling her to approach the judicial forum. She further contends that the proceedings initiated by her are based on substantive events that warrant a fair trial and that the applicants, rather than responding to the allegations in accordance with law, have chosen to evade the process by seeking blanket quashing of proceedings.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the complaint discloses specific allegations which, if accepted on their face value, do constitute a prima facie case under the penal provisions invoked.

¶28

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 enumerated circumstances under which criminal proceedings may be quashed at the initial stage. These include cases where the allegations do not disclose a cognisable offence, or the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. However, the power to quash must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection.

¶29

3

¶30

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2586 of 2019, Deepak Bisht & others Vs State and Anr. -

¶31

Ashish Naithani J.

¶32

2025:UHC:3780

¶33

In the present matter, the version of the applicant and that of the respondent are in complete contradiction. The allegations made by the respondent relate to her treatment at the hands of her husband and inlaws during the subsistence of the marriage. These allegations are not vague or bald, but rather narrate a consistent course of conduct involving alleged cruelty, physical abuse, and emotional neglect.

¶34

Whether or not these allegations are true is a matter that can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence during the trial. It is neither permissible nor advisable for this Court to embark upon a detailed factual analysis at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Furthermore, the complaint was entertained by the Magistrate upon due consideration, and the summoning order dated 12.09.2019 reflects application of judicial mind. This Court finds no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity in the said order.

¶36

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116 , has clarified that inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked to short-circuit a criminal trial where the complaint discloses commission of an offence. The mere existence of a contrary narrative from the accused is not sufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶37

The submission that the proceedings have been instituted as a counterblast to matrimonial litigation also cannot be accepted as a

¶38

4

¶39

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2586 of 2019, Deepak Bisht & others Vs State and Anr. -

¶40

Ashish Naithani J.

¶41

2025:UHC:3780

¶42

ground for quashing, in the absence of any unimpeachable material to

¶43

that effect.

¶44

In the opinion of this Court, entertaining the application at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution and may result in a miscarriage of justice. The trial Court is fully competent to assess the credibility of evidence and to determine whether the charges

¶45