Partly allowed¶12

Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 May 2026C482/386/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court, C482/386/2021, decided 04.05.2026 by Alok Mahra, J. Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application; chargesheet and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.08.2020 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 618 of 2020; offences under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; FIR by wife against husband and his family members after 2017 marriage; general allegations against younger brother (in Delhi), married sister and mother; reliance on Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar (implicating all family members without specific allegations to be discouraged; abuse of process); quashed qua applicant nos. 2 to 4; proceedings continue against husband (applicant no.1) owing to specific allegations; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 618 of 2020, and the entire proceedings of the said case, quashed qua applicant nos. 2 to 4; proceedings against applicant no.1 (husband) to continue in accordance with law; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			C482/386/2021 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the chargesheet, cognizance/ summoning order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 618 of 2020, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife). It is contended that the marriage between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized in the year 2017, and due to certain matrimonial differences, the respondent no.2 lodged the impugned F.I.R. against all the

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C482/386/2021
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms.
Prabha
Naithani,
learned
counsel for the applicant.
2.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the
State.
3.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel
for respondent no.2.
4.
Present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing
of
the
chargesheet,
cognizance/
summoning order dated 07.08.2020
passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal
Case No. 618 of 2020, arising out of
offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as
the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
case.
5.
Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in
question emanates from matrimonial
discord
between
applicant
no.1
(husband) and respondent no.2 (wife).
It is contended that the marriage
between applicant no.1 and respondent
no.2 was solemnized in the year 2017,
and
due
to
certain
matrimonial
differences, the respondent no.2 lodged
the impugned F.I.R. against all the

applicants. Upon completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a chargesheet, on the basis
of which the learned trial court has
taken cognizance.
6. She would further submit that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. are false
and fabricated in nature; that,
applicant no.2 is the younger brother of
applicant no.1 and is residing
separately in Delhi for the purpose of
preparing for competitive examinations;
that, applicant no.3 is a married sister
living in her matrimonial home; and
that, applicant no.4 is the mother of
applicant no.1. It is argued that no
specific or credible allegations have
been made against applicant nos. 2 to 4
with regard to demand of dowry or acts
of cruelty; that, the implication of the
said applicants is stated to be with an
ulterior motive to harass them and
settle personal scores.
7. It is also contended that the
Investigating Officer has submitted the
chargesheet in a routine and
mechanical manner without proper
application of mind; that, continuation
of criminal proceedings against
applicant nos. 2 to 4 would amount to
abuse of the process of law, as there is
no material on record to prima facie
establish their involvement in the
alleged offences.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for

applicants.
Upon
completion
of

investigation, the Investigating Officer

submitted a chargesheet, on the basis

of which the learned trial court has

taken cognizance.

6.
She would further submit that the

allegations made in the F.I.R. are false

and
fabricated
in
nature;
that,

applicant no.2 is the younger brother of

applicant
no.1
and
is
residing

separately in Delhi for the purpose of

preparing for competitive examinations;

that, applicant no.3 is a married sister

living in her matrimonial home; and

that, applicant no.4 is the mother of

applicant no.1. It is argued that no

specific or credible allegations have

been made against applicant nos. 2 to 4

with regard to demand of dowry or acts

of cruelty; that, the implication of the

said applicants is stated to be with an

ulterior motive to harass them and

settle personal scores.

7.
It is also contended that the

Investigating Officer has submitted the

chargesheet
in
a
routine
and

mechanical manner without proper

application of mind; that, continuation

of
criminal
proceedings
against

applicant nos. 2 to 4 would amount to

abuse of the process of law, as there is

no material on record to prima facie

establish
their
involvement
in
the

alleged offences.

8.
Per contra, learned counsel for

respondent no.2 would submit that the
applicants have subjected the
complainant to cruelty on account of
demand of dowry and have also
physically assaulted her and ousted her
from her matrimonial home; that, the
Investigating Officer, after due
investigation, has filed the chargesheet
and the learned Magistrate has rightly
taken cognizance of the offences.
9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. Upon perusal of the F.I.R. and
other material on record, this Court
finds that the allegations against
applicant nos. 2 to 4 are general in
nature, without any specific instance of
cruelty or demand of dowry attributed
to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions, including_Geeta_
Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State
of Bihar, has held that in matrimonial
disputes, the tendency to implicate all
family members without specific
allegations must be discouraged, and in
the absence of specific role attributed to
the relatives, continuation of
proceedings against them would
amount to abuse of process of law.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal
position and considering the facts of
the present case, this Court is of the
opinion that noprima facie case is

respondent no.2 would submit that the

applicants
have
subjected
the

complainant to cruelty on account of

demand
of
dowry
and
have
also

physically assaulted her and ousted her

from her matrimonial home; that, the

Investigating
Officer,
after
due

investigation, has filed the chargesheet

and the learned Magistrate has rightly

taken cognizance of the offences.

9.
Heard learned counsel for the

parties
and
perused
the
material

available on record.

10. Upon perusal of the F.I.R. and

other material on record, this Court

finds
that
the
allegations
against

applicant nos. 2 to 4 are general in

nature, without any specific instance of

cruelty or demand of dowry attributed

to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

catena of decisions, including_Geeta_

Mehrotra
vs.
State
of
U.P.
and

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State

of Bihar, has held that in matrimonial

disputes, the tendency to implicate all

family
members
without
specific

allegations must be discouraged, and in

the absence of specific role attributed to

the
relatives,
continuation
of

proceedings
against
them
would

amount to abuse of process of law.

11. In view of the aforesaid legal

position and considering the facts of

the present case, this Court is of the

opinion that noprima facie case is

Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deen Mohammad Alias Dinna Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ankit Rathore Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nidhi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chand Khan Vs Mohd Anees

Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya Alias Buban Vs State of Uttarakhand