Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 31 (UTT)

SUBHASH RAUTHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-01-13

UMESH CHANDRA DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT: Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. The applicant, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 08.03.2014 and cognizance order dated 25.07.2014, as well as the proceedings of criminal case No. 2289 of 2014, State vs. Subhash Rauthan, under Section 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun. When present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was taken up for the first time, respondent No. 2 was directed to be issued notice. Registry has indicated that, as per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, respondent No. 2 has been served secondary on 04.09.2014. Today none is present for respondent No. 2, despite service of such notice. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. Misc. application No. 4748 of 2014 made therefore is disposed of. 3. In the first F.I.R., lodged by respondent No. 2, the principal allegation against the applicant is that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was demanded by him if the family members of respondent No. 2 are interested in her immediate marriage with the applicant. It is also the allegation against the applicant that the applicant wants to break the engagement (of the applicant with respondent No. 2) and in this way an F.I.R. was lodged against applicant for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. A certificate in the form of Annexure-1 has been filed by the applicant alongwith the supplementary affidavit to show that respondent No. 2 has married to one Mahavir Singh, son of late Kunwar Singh on 08.12.2013, at Gayatri Tirth, Shanti Kunj. 5. Two facts have prompted this Court to decide the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. today itself. The first is that none has come for respondent No. 2 despite service of notice, and the second is that respondent No. 2 has married to one Mahavir Singh on 08.12.2013 and appears to have been leading a happy married life. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. The first is that none has come for respondent No. 2 despite service of notice, and the second is that respondent No. 2 has married to one Mahavir Singh on 08.12.2013 and appears to have been leading a happy married life. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 4 JCC 2885 : (2012) 9 JT 329 : (2012) 9 JT 312 : (2012) 9 SCALE 58 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 , has observed the where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interest of justice favours otherwise, it may quash the proceedings. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 7. It will, therefore, be a futile exercise to keep the criminal case pending against the applicant, as also present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case, in which the inherent jurisdiction shall be exercised in the interest of justice. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. Charge-sheet dated 08.03.2014 and cognizance order dated 25.07.2014, as well as the proceedings of criminal case No. 2289 of 2014, State vs. Subhash Rauthan, under Section 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun are hereby quashed and set aside.