Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 148 (UTT)

Ashutosh Gautam v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-03

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This C482 petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure-9) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 3588 of 2015, State vs. Ashutosh Gautam and Others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the daughter of respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 was solemnized on 24.11.2012. Respondent no. 2 gave dowry beyond his capacity. Later on, matrimonial dispute was started among the parties. Petitioner no. 1 preferred a Suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Thereafter respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR against the petitioners. On 25.09.2013 this Court granted protection to the petitioners in WPCRL No. 1124 of 2013. But later on, police has submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners. Petitioners preferred C482 Petition No. 141 of 2014, challenging the charge sheet and proceedings. The said petition was disposed of on 05.04.2017 with direction to the petitioners to surrender. In the meantime, daughter of respondent no. 2, namely, Niti Bhargawa died on 09.03.2016. Against the judgment dated 05.04.2017 passed by this Court in C482 Petition No. 141 of 2014, the petitioners filed an SLP, which was disposed of with direction to approach the trial court in term of para 22 of the Supreme Court’s judgment passed in some other case. The petitioners filed an application on 25.10.2017 before the trial court seeking adjournment, which was dismissed by the trial court on 06.03.2018 and now the matter is fixed for 06.04.2018 for the appearance of the petitioners. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but undue harassment of the petitioners at the hands of the police. It is contended that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, Haridwar passed the order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the material on record, which is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that petitioners are the reputed persons of the society and are facing great mental stress. 4. I have seen the order passed by the lower court and perused the record. It is not a case where trial court has not exercised its jurisdiction in lawful manner. It is settled law that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only in rare cases where abuse of process of law is found. 4. I have seen the order passed by the lower court and perused the record. It is not a case where trial court has not exercised its jurisdiction in lawful manner. It is settled law that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only in rare cases where abuse of process of law is found. In this case after proper investigation charge sheet was filed, the Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet issued summoning order. This is not a case where High Court should intervene under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The C482 petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case petitioners appear before the court and move bail applications, same shall be considered by the court concerned expeditiously, preferably same day. 5. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.