Application to quash chargesheet and summoning order in a dowry/cruelty case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found the Magistrate had applied judicial mind and complied with Section 202 Cr.P.C., and dismissed the application, leaving grievances open before the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| No | Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| C528 No. 1159 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prabhakar Narayan, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned D.A.G. alongwith Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash/set-aside the chargesheet, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7623 of 2025, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned 1stACJM, District Dehradun. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that marriage between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 25.11.2022 and after living only for a period of three months in a matrimonial house, the complainant left her matrimonial house on her own sweet will and thereafter she was living in her parental house. The father of the complainant died in the year 2023 and after his death, she was granted compassionate appointment in place of her father and only thereafter, this complaint was lodged. It is further submitted that the Magistrate before taking cognizance has not followed the procedure, as prescribed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the bare perusal of the |
| summoning order reveals that it is a | well |
|---|---|
| reasoned order based on the material | on |
| record and chargesheet filed by Investigating Officer, therefore, the provis |
the ions |
| of Section 202 Cr.P.C. have been follo Learned State Counsel would further su that all the contentions, as raised by lea counsel for the applicants, are matter of tr |
wed. bmit rned ial. |
| 6. Heard learned counsel for the pa and perused the record. |
rties |
| 7. Perusal of the impugned summo |
ning |
| order dated 11.11.2025 reveals that | the |
| evidence collected was placed before learned court below, which, after applyin judicial mind, has rightly passed the afore order. |
the g its said |
| 8. The court concerned has considere discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the |
d & view |
| taken by the learned Magistrate conce cannot be faulted. This Court does not |
rned find |
| any infirmity or illegality in the impug order. Hence, this Court does not find reason to interfere with the impugned orde |
ned any r. |
| 9. Accordingly, the criminal m application fails and is hereby dismissed. |
isc. |
| 10. However, it is always open for applicants to raise all their grievances be the learned Trial Court concerned. (Alok Mahra 03.06.2026 Ujjwal |
the fore J.) |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order dated 11.11.2025 and chargesheet in Criminal Case No. 7623 of 2025 were vitiated by non-compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Applicants
State of Uttarakhand
Respondent no. 2 (complainant)
Alok Mahra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
