Smt Santosh vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 169 of 2015
Smt Santosh and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned AGA with Mr. Vipul Painuly,
learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 through video conferencing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
By means of the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing the order
dated 19.01.2015 along with summoning order dated
23.09.2013 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.1404 of 2013, ‘State vs. Gopal Sharma and Others’
pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar.
2. The facts as narrated in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application are as follows:
The applicant no. 1 is mother-in-law, applicant
no. 2 is father-in-law, applicant no. 3 is brother-in-
law and applicant no. 4 is husband of respondent
no. 2. The marriage of the son of applicant no. 4
was solemnized in the year 2005. On the instigation
of the father of respondent no. 2, Rishi Ram
Pradhan, the applicant no. 1 gave a huge amount to
son-in-law of Rishi Ram Pradhan, namely Lalit
1
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
Sharma, who did not return the same in the next 5
years despite several requests of the applicants.
However, due to that, the relation of the respondent
no. 2 and applicant no. 4 became bitter. Thereafter,
the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before Mahila
Helpline, Jwalapur for dowry harassment.
In the said complaint, the police did the
investigation and found that nothing has been
found regarding dowry harassment, however the
background of dispute is the aforesaid money
transaction. Prior to that, the applicant no. 2 also
filed an application before Mahila Helpline,
Jwalapur on 24.06.2012. On 23.09.2012, the
respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR against the
applicants and another, alleging therein that the
accused persons were harassing her on account of
non-fulfillment of their dowry demand along with
false medical report.
In the FIR, the main facts alleged are that the
marriage of the respondent no. 2 and the applicant
no. 4 was solemnized on 29.04.2005. Thereafter,
there was harassment for dowry demand by the
accused persons. On 05.02.2006, the
informant/respondent no. 2 gave birth to a male
child. On 23.06.2012, the accused persons
committed maar-peet with the informant/
respondent no. 2 and harassed her for dowry and
raised dowry demands. She was rescued by her
brother. The medical examination of the
informant/respondent no. 2 was conducted in the
hospital.
3. In pursuance to the aforesaid FIR,
2
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
investigation ensued and culminated in filing of a charge
sheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 504,
506, 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act on 24.10.2012. On the basis of the
aforesaid charge sheet, the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, vide order dated
23.09.2013, took cognizance in the matter and
summoned the applicants to stand trial. The applicants
challenged the said summoning order before the Sessions
Judge, Haridwar, however, the Revisional Court
dismissed the said revision as not maintainable.
4. Assailing the charge sheet and summoning
order, learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that before the FIR was lodged, the matter was sent to
the Mahila Helpline.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would refer
to the report of the Mahila Helpline wherein it is also
okrkZyki ds nkSjku ngst lEcU/kh dksbZ rF; lkeus ugha vk;s nksuksa
mentioned – “
i{kksa dk vkil esa iSalks dk ysunsu dk ekeyk gSA xksiky “kekZ viuh iRuh dks j[kus dks
rS;kj gS vkilh jaft”k ds dkj.k iwtk “kekZ ds ekrk firk viuh yM+dh dks mlds
llqjky ugha Hkstuk pkgrs gSaA ”
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that in the report of the Mahila Helpline itself, it
has been stated that the husband has all along been
ready to take the wife. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that in respect of the incident of
23.06.2012 of assault and subjecting the informant/
respondent no. 2 for dowry harassment, there have been
judicial findings that there has been no harassment for
dowry demand by husband in all those proceedings. He
would refer to the judgment rendered in the proceedings
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgment
rendered in proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
3
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
Marriage Act for divorce instituted by the wife. However,
the said divorce proceedings culminated in dismissal of
the divorce suit and on findings on issue no. 1 pertaining
to cruelty, the learned Family Court, while referring to
the cross-examination of the informant/ respondent no.
2, has held that the respondent no. 2/informant could
not prove the allegations of maarpeet and the incident of
23.06.2012, and hence the issue no. 1 regarding cruelty
has been decided against the wife/respondent no. 2.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also
referred to the statements of the respondent no. 2
wherein she has admitted that these statements have
been given by her on legal advice.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Arti Mehta and Others vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and another, reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 933 , and has placed reliance upon para nos.
41, 42, 43 and 44 of the said judgment, and has
vehemently argued that in matters pertaining to Section
498A, there has been a tendency to rope in the entire
family members and in the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has deprecated this practice of roping in
the entire family members. However, he would very fairly
submit that in the case of Arti Mehta (Supra) , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interfered in the matter
with respect to the husband. Para nos. 41, 42, 43 & 44
are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
“41. It is further required to be stated that the
invocation of the criminal process is not a matter of
course. The coercive machinery of criminal law
carries serious civil and personal consequences and,
therefore, can be legitimately set in motion only
where the allegations disclose specific acts
4
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
constituting offences punishable under the penal law.
This principle assumes even greater significance in
cases arising out of matrimonial and domestic
discord. Family relationships are founded upon
emotional bonds, mutual trust, affection and shared
responsibilities, and cannot be viewed through the
same lens as ordinary commercial, civil disputes or
criminal cases. It is not uncommon that when
matrimonial relationships deteriorate, allegations are
made in the heat of emotional turmoil and bitterness,
often resulting in the entire family of the spouse being
drawn into criminal litigation. However, criminal law
cannot be permitted to become an instrument for
venting personal grievances or settling familial scores
in the absence of clear, specific and legally
sustainable allegations. Courts must therefore
exercise a heightened degree of caution and judicial
scrutiny before permitting criminal prosecution
against relatives who are sought to be implicated
merely by virtue of their relationship with the spouse.
42. At the same time, this Court is equally
conscious of the reality that genuine cases of cruelty
and domestic violence do occur within the confines of
the matrimonial home and often remain concealed
from public gaze. Acts of emotional, verbal, economic
or physical abuse within the domestic sphere may
not always leave behind readily available evidence
or independent witnesses, and the absence of such
evidence at the threshold cannot by itself be a ground
to disbelieve a victim. It is precisely to address this
social evil that legislations such as the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the
penal provisions relating to cruelty and dowry
harassment have been enacted with wide amplitude
and protective intent. The object of such statutes is to
ensure meaningful legal protection to women
subjected to domestic abuse and harassment within
the matrimonial home.
43. However, while safeguarding the rights and
dignity of victims of domestic violence remains of
paramount importance, courts are simultaneously
required to ensure that the rigours of criminal law are
not indiscriminately extended to every member of the
family without a clear factual foundation. In
prosecutions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the
allegations against each accused must be specific,
distinct and supported by prima facie material
indicating active involvement in the alleged acts of
5
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
cruelty, harassment or unlawful demand of dowry.
Mere allegations that family members “supported”
the husband, failed to intervene, or advised the
complainant to adjust in the matrimonial relationship,
without anything further, would not ipso facto attract
criminal liability. There may indeed be situations
where certain relatives remain passive spectators or
fail to come to the aid of the complainant; however,
such conduct, though morally questionable, cannot
automatically be elevated to the status of criminal
culpability unless the surrounding circumstances
clearly disclose their active complicity or participation
in the alleged offences.
44. It must therefore be emphasised that each
case arising out of matrimonial discord or allegations
of domestic violence must necessarily turn on its own
peculiar facts and the nature of allegations levelled
against the accused concerned. The observations
made herein should not be construed to mean that
relatives of the husband can never be prosecuted
under the relevant penal provisions. Where the
material on record discloses specific overt acts, active
participation, or direct involvement in perpetrating
cruelty, harassment or domestic violence, such
relatives would undoubtedly be liable to face
prosecution in accordance with the law. What the
Court is required to carefully examine is whether the
allegations are genuine, specific and supported by
foundational facts, or whether they are merely a
consequence of matrimonial acrimony resulting in
sweeping and omnibus implication of all family
members. In the absence of such specific allegations
and prima facie material, continuation of criminal
proceedings against such relatives would amount to
abuse of the process of law.”
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also
relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lokesh Kumar Jain vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 130 , and has
drawn the attention of the Court to para nos. 22, 23 and
25 thereof, and on the basis of the findings of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment, learned counsel for
the applicant would submit that since the finding with
regard to cruelty, etc., in civil proceedings has been
6
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
returned in favour of the applicants, and criminal
proceedings require a higher degree of proof, therefore,
where the finding with regard to cruelty has been
returned in favour of the husband, hence the criminal
proceedings with respect to the self same allegations
cannot be sustained in criminal proceedings where the
degree of proof would be on a higher pedestal. Relevant
para nos. 23 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment in the
case of Lokesh Kumar Jain (Supra) are being reproduced
hereunder for ready reference :-
“23. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [(1996) 9 SCC
1: 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , this Court noticed that the
appellant was exonerated in the departmental
proceeding in the light of report of the Central
Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union
Public Service Commission. The criminal case was
pending since long, in spite of the fact that the
appellant was exonerated in the departmental
proceeding for same charge.
25. Having regard to the factual scenario, noted
above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of
the opinion that the present case of the appellant
is one of the fit cases where the High Court should
have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC.
It is not disputed by the respondent that the
departmental proceeding was initiated against the
appellant with regard to identical charges made in
the FIR. It was alleged that as per CAG Inquiry
Report dated 15-12-2008 Rs 4,39,617 has been
misappropriated by the appellant, all the copies of
original bills and documents are available in the
Office of CAG and the original documents are
available in the Office of the Directorate, State
Literacy Programme.”
10. Learned counsel for the applicants would
further doubt the medical examination report of the
respondent no. 2 and would submit that the respondent
7
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
no. 2 has different versions regarding the medical
examination report as to who took her for the medical
examination report, though on the face of it, the medical
examination report states B/B-self- i.e. "brought by self".
11. Learned counsel for the applicants has also
relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of
MST. Rehana Begum vs. State of Assam
and has
and Another reported in (2022) 17 SCC 722
relied upon paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the said
judgment. Paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the said
judgment are being extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
“16. The precedent of this Court clarifies that in
certain circumstances, the High Court is entitled
to consider other materials before exercising its
powers of quashing under Section 482CrPC.
17. In the present case the appellant and the
second respondent were parties to the decision
of the Family Court. No contentious material or
disputed issues of evidence arise. In the above
backdrop, allowing the criminal proceeding to
proceed for an offence under Sections 494 and
495IPC would constitute an abuse of the
process.
18. As between the appellant and the second
respondent the issue as to whether she had a
subsisting marriage on the date on which she
entered into a marriage with the second
respondent is the subject-matter of a conclusive
finding of the Principal Judge of the Family
Court which has attained finality. Explanation
(b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
expressly confers the Family Court with
jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status
of a person. Section 7(1) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 grants a Family Court with the status
of a District Court and Section 7(2) confers it
with jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of
the First Class under Chapter IX CrPC, thus
enabling to collect evidence to make such a
determination. Thus, relying on the judgment of
the Family Court which has jurisdiction to
8
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
decide the gravamen of the offence alleged in
the criminal complaint, would not be same as
relying on evidentiary materials that are due for
appreciation by the trial court, such as the
investigation report before it is forwarded to the
Magistrate.”
12. Learned counsel for the applicants has also
relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Digambar and Another vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC
and in particular has drawn the
OnLine SC 3836
attention of the Court to paragraph nos.18, 20 & 23 of
the said judgment are being extracted hereunder for
ready reference:
“18. The ingredients for an offence to be made
out under Section 498-A of IPC require that
there has to be cruelty inflicted against the
victim which either drives her to commit suicide
or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such
conduct that would cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health. The second part of
this Section refers to harassment with a view to
satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security raised by the husband or his
relatives. In the present case, no allegations
which would fulfil the requirement of the second
part are found.
20. It would be appropriate to refer to a recent
decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal 5199
of 2024 titled as Dara Lakshmi
4
Narayana v. State of Telangana . This court
dealt with the ingredients of Section 498-A and
whether the same are attracted through vague
allegations raised by the complainant (wife). It
was observed that:
“17 The issue for consideration is whether,
.
given the facts and circumstances of the case
and after examining the FIR, the High Court
was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing
criminal proceedings against the appellants
arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated
01.02.2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
9
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague
and omnibus. Other than claiming that
appellant No. 1 harassed her and that appellant
Nos. 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent
No. 2 has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of
harassment. She has also not mentioned the
time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR
lacks concrete and precise allegations.
19. Further, the record reveals that respondent
No. 2 on 03.10.2021 left the matrimonial house
leading appellant No. 1 to file a police complaint
on 05.10.2021. When the police officials traced
her, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter dated
11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to
close the complaint made by appellant No. 1. In
the said letter, respondent No. 2 admitted that
she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling
with appellant No. 1 as she was talking to a
person by name Govindan over the phone for
the past ten days continuously. She further
admitted that appellant No. 1 was taking good
care of her. She also stated that she will not
engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in
2021 itself, respondent No. 2 once again left the
matrimonial house leaving appellant No. 1 and
also her minor children.
20. Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No. 1
issued a legal notice to respondent No. 1
seeking divorce by mutual consent on
13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said
legal notice issued by appellant No. 1,
respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR 82 of
2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet
Police Station, Rachakonda under
Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Act.
21. Given the facts of this case and in view of
the timing and context of the FIR, we find that
respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial house on
03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.
1 with respect to her interactions with a third
person in their marriage. Later she came back to
her matrimonial house assuring to have a
cordial relationship with appellant No. 1.
10
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
However, she again left the matrimonial house.
When appellant No. 1 issued a legal notice
seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR
came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent
No. 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine
complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure
intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1
and his family members.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 State
contended that a prima facie case was made
out against the appellants for harassing
respondent No. 2 and demanding dowry from
her. However, we observe that the allegations
made by respondent No. 2 in the FIR seem to be
motivated by a desire for retribution rather than
a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations
attributed against the appellants herein are
vague and omnibus.
23. Respondent No. 2 has not contested the
present case either before the High Court or this
Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that
respondent No. 2 has not only deserted
appellant No. 1 but has also abandoned her two
children as well, who are now in the care and
custody of appellant No. 1. The counsel for the
appellants has specifically submitted that
respondent No. 2 has shown no inclination to
reestablish any relationship with her children.
…….
25. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact,
borne out of judicial experience, that there is
often a tendency to implicate all the members of
the husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis
for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise
caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family
members. In the present case, appellant Nos. 2
to 6, who are the members of the family of
11
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
appellant No. 1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial
house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2
herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into
criminal prosecution and the same would be an
abuse of the process of the law in the absence
of specific allegations made against each of
them.”
23. Hence, it was clear that ‘cruelty’ is not
enough to constitute the offence. It must be done
with the intention to cause grave injury or drive
the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave
injury to herself. In the present case, the
allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the
existence of any such allegations. The only
allegation that referred to an injury being
inflicted against the complainant is a vague
statement that the son of the appellants herein
used to beat her, but there is no specific
allegation of any such injury being caused by
the appellants herein.”
13. While relying upon the aforesaid judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the
applicants would submit that in the judgments cited on
behalf of the applicants, the cases were also, inter alia,
under Section 498A of the IPC and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings.
14. Learned counsel for the applicants would thus
conclude by submitting that from a bare perusal of the
report of the Mahila Helpline, the dispute between the
parties was only pertaining to some monetary
transactions and no facts concerning dowry have come to
light. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that since there is no allegation regarding
demand for dowry, hence the FIR allegations are made
after much thought and consideration, and no reliance
can be placed upon the same. It is further submitted that
prior to the FIR, there is no prior complaint. The
allegations as contained in the FIR are a totally concocted
12
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
story and no reliance can be placed upon the same and
he would submit that the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to
be allowed and the charge-sheet and the summoning
order deserve to be quashed.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2, Mr. P.K. Chauhan, would submit that the incident
is corroborated by medical evidence. Section 307 IPC was
dropped in the investigation, therefore it would be
deemed that the investigation was not mechanical. He
would further submit that the documents annexed on
behalf of the applicants along with the supplementary
affidavit are post the lodging of the FIR and any
subsequent proceedings which have taken place after the
incident will not have any bearing on the investigation.
He would further submit that in the case of Arti Mehta
, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the
(Supra)
case of the husband. He would further submit that the
FIR is prompt and thereafter coupled with medical
examination report and charge sheet. Based on the
charge sheet, cognizance has been taken on the material
available before the record. He would thus submit that
disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with in
proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it is the
sole domain of the Trial Court to enter into the factual
arena. He would also submit that the case needs to be
decided on its own evidence and facts.
16. Learned AGA for the State would draw the
attention of the Court to statements of the informant
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and he would submit
that the respondent no. 2/informant has supported the
prosecution case. He has also referred to the medical
13
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
examination report of the respondent no. 2 and he would
submit that the medical examination report also
corroborates the prosecution case. Medical examination
of the respondent no.2 has been conducted on the very
next day of the incident. There is no delay on account of
the matter being a matrimonial dispute.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
18. On one hand, learned counsel for the
applicants has vehemently argued that when the dispute
between the parties travelled to the Mahila Helpline and
when the conciliation proceedings were conducted before
the Mahila Helpline, no fact regarding the dowry demand
etc. came to light and the report was submitted by the
Mahila Helpline wherein dispute between the parties
appears to be some monetary transactions.
19. Learned counsel for the applicants has also
stressed that in the prior proceedings between the
parties, there have been judicial findings that there has
been no harassment for dowry demand by husband.
20. Learned counsel for the applicants has further
submitted that in the divorce proceedings, which were
instituted by the wife, the issue no.1 regarding cruelty
has been decided against the wife/respondent. Learned
counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Arti Mehta (Supra), Digambar and another (Supra) and
MST. Rehana Begum (Supra) and has submitted that in
all those judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
proceeded to quash the proceedings emanating out of
Section 498A IPC.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
14
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
respondent no.2/informant has submitted that the
incident is corroborated by medical evidence. He has also
pointed out that the FIR is prompt and is also coupled
with the medical examination report and on the basis of
which charge sheet, cognizance has been taken.
22. The learned counsel for the State has also
submitted that the respondent no.2/informant has
supported the prosecution case. The medical examination
report also corroborates the prosecution case.
23. Now the question that falls for determination of
this Court is whether in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, where there is specific
allegation in the FIR against the applicants regarding
dowry demand, abuse and also commission of maarpeet
by the applicants, whether it would be appropriate to
quash the proceedings or not.
24. The judgments cited on behalf of the
applicants by the learned counsel for the applicants,
though pertain to offences interalia under Section 498A
of the IPC; however, upon a closer scrutiny of all those
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same are
not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, as the factual matrix of the judgments cited
by the learned counsel for the applicants are different.
25. In the present case, there are specific
allegations of demand of dowry with date and timing i.e.
23.06.2012 and also the allegations of maarpeet are of
6:30 PM. The said allegations of maarpeet at 6:30 PM are
duly corroborated by the medical examination report
dated 23.06.2012, in which injuries have been found in
the medical examination report, and in the opinion of the
Medical Officer of Harmilap Mission District Hospital,
15
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
Haridwar, the injuries are said to be caused by hard and
blunt object. In fact, injury no.2 has been kept under
observation and advised X-ray and the duration is stated
to be fresh.
26. In such a factual backdrop of the case, the
submissions as made on behalf of the learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 and the State that disputed
questions of fact cannot be dealt with in proceedings
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. appear to be more
acceptable.
27. In this regard, reference can be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
, and paragraph
others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260
nos. 14 and 15 thereof are relevant, which are being
extracted hereunder for ready reference :
From a reading of the complaint, it cannot
“14.
be held that even if the allegations are taken as
proved no case is made out. There are
allegations against Respondent 2 and his
parents for harassing the complainant which
forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even
now she continues to be separated from the
matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of
security and safety and proper environment in
the matrimonial home. The question whether the
appellant has in fact been harassed and treated
with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage,
it cannot be said that no case is made out.
Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is
not permissible.
15. The decisions referred to in the judgment of
the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu
Chopra [Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC
184 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286] , the parents of the
husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had
died and main allegations were only against
him. This Court found no cogent material
against the other accused. In Manoj
Mahavir [Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram
16
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
Gopal Poddar, (2010) 10 SCC 673 : (2011) 1
SCC (Cri) 94] , the appellant before this Court
was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the
accused who lodged the case against the
accused for theft of jewellery during pendency
of earlier Section 498-A IPC case. This Court
found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta
Mehrotra [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.,
(2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] , case was against
brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had
taken place between the parties. The said cases
neither purport to nor can be read as laying
down any inflexible rule beyond the principles
of quashing which have been mentioned above
and applied to the facts of the cases therein
which are distinguishable. In the present case
the factual matrix is different from the said
cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot
be held that there is no triable case against the
accused.”
28. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that the question whether the
applicant has in fact been harassed and treated with
cruelty is a matter of trial, but at this stage, it cannot be
said that no case is made out, thus, quashing of
proceedings before the trial is not permissible.
29. After considering the aforesaid factual matrix
of the case, the judgments cited by the learned counsel
for the applicants, and particularly in view of the fact
that in the present case there is a medical examination
report duly corroborating the allegations as levelled in the
FIR, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit
case for quashing of proceedings at this stage.
30. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the matter needs to be dealt with by the trial court.
However, it is made clear that any observations made in
this judgment would not affect the trial court and the
trial court will decide the case on its own merit.
17
UKHC010013222015
2026:UHC:7953
31. In such view of the matter, this Court does not
find any scope for interference and with the aforesaid
observations, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby
dismissed.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
03.09.2026
JKJ
/
18