PIYUSH SINGH AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

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

No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010193362026

C528/2402/2026

Piyush Singh And Others

--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr. Deepak Joshi, D.A.G. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate for respondent
no.2.

2. Present C-528 application is filed with the
prayer to set-aside/quash the charge sheet dated
20.03.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial No.2 of 2024 (earlier registered as
Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2024), State Vs. Piyush
Singh and Others, pending in the Court of
learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

3. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2026)
has also been filed in the matter. At the very
outset, learned counsel for the applicants
submits that he does not want to press the
compounding application. Accordingly, the
compounding application is dismissed, as not
pressed.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the
complainant, who happens to be the father of the
deceased, lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant
no. 1, alleging, inter alia, that the deceased was
continuously subjected to harassment and
cruelty by the applicant no.1 and his family
members in connection with an unlawful demand
for dowry. It was further alleged that, on
19.01.2020, owing to the non-fulfilment of the
said demand, the applicant no.1 and his family
members killed the deceased, thereafter,
attempted to portray the incident as a case of

suicide. Pursuant to the F.I.R., an investigation
was conducted, and the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet against the present
applicants. Thereafter, learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence and summoned the
applicants to face trial. Hence, the present
Criminal Miscellaneous Application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the complainant has been examined as
P.W.2 and in his statement, he admitted the fact
that no complaint was filed earlier by the
complainant or the deceased in relation to
demand of dowry by the applicant. Learned
counsel further submits that the post-mortem
report, as well as the statement of the doctor,
indicates that the deceased died as a result of
hanging and that no external injury was found on
her person. It is contended that neither the
inquest proceedings nor the post-mortem report
discloses any injury consistent with the allegation
that the deceased was strangulated to death.
Learned counsel further submits that there is no
cogent evidence on record to establish that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment
in connection with a demand for dowry soon
before her death. It is also contended that the
marriage between the applicant and the deceased
was solemnized on 07.03.2018 and that no
complaint regarding any demand for dowry or
related harassment was ever lodged by the
deceased or her family members against the
applicant no.1 or his family members during the
subsistence of the marriage. On these grounds,
learned counsel submits that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the applicants
would serve no useful purpose and would
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that the death of the deceased occurred within
seven years of her marriage and, therefore, the
provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code are attracted. It is further submitted that
the allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and that the
proceedings initiated against the applicants do
not warrant interference by this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record. Before
proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, reported
in (2024) 13 SCC 649, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reiterated that, for attracting the
provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code, the prosecution must establish that the
death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily
injury, or occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances, within seven years of her
marriage, and that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives in connection with a
demand for dowry. The requirement of cruelty or
harassment soon before death is an essential
ingredient of the offence and cannot be dispensed
with merely because the death occurred within
seven years of marriage. An unnatural death
within the statutory period, by itself, is not
sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of
the requisite evidence concerning dowry-related
cruelty or harassment.
8. In the present case, the marriage between
the applicant no.1 and the deceased was
solemnized 07.03.2018 and the deceased died
on 19.01.2020. Thus, the death occurred
within seven years of the marriage. However,
the mere fact that the death occurred within
the aforesaid period does not, by itself,
establish the commission of an offence under
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The
prosecution is also required to establish the
foundational facts relating to cruelty or
harassment in connection with a demand for
dowry soon before the death of the deceased.
The complainant, who is the father of the
deceased and the informant in the present
case, stated on oath that no complaint was filed
earlier by deceased or the informant’s family
against the applicants with regard to demand of
dowry or harassment of the deceased; further
an affidavit in compounding application has
been filed by informant denying the prosecution
story. The other witnesses, as submitted by
learned counsel for the applicants, have also
not supported the prosecution case. Further,
the material relied upon by the applicant,
including the post-mortem report and the
statement of the doctor, indicates that the
cause of death was hanging and that no
external injuries were found on the body of the
deceased.
9. More importantly, upon consideration of

the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and the material placed before this
Court, no specific and cogent material has been
brought to the notice of the Court
demonstrating that the deceased was subjected
to cruelty or harassment in connection with a
demand for dowry soon before her death. The
mere fact that the death occurred within seven
years of marriage cannot substitute the
essential requirement of establishing a
proximate link between the alleged dowry-
related cruelty or harassment and the death of
the deceased. To the contrary, the deceased
was taken on vacation and other recreations by
applicants one week before the deceased
committed suicide.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion,
particularly the absence of cogent material
indicating that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment in connection with a
demand for dowry soon before her death, and
having regard to the evidence placed on record
concerning the cause of death and the
testimony of the material witnesses, this Court
is of the considered view that continuation of
the proceedings against the applicants would
not serve the ends of justice. The essential
ingredients necessary to sustain the
prosecution under Section 304-B of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not
borne out from the material placed before this
Court. Accordingly, the case warrants
interference in the exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
11. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
Consequently, the entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial No.2 of 2024 (earlier registered
as Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2024), State Vs.
Piyush Singh and Others, pending in the Court
of learned II Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, are
hereby quashed qua the applicants.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.10.2026

Ujjwal