Uttarakhand High Court
Vishal Kumar And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 16 May, 2018
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
C482 No.505 of 2018 Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. along with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicants to set-aside the summoning order dated 31.10.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.11623 of 2017, "State vs. Vishal Kumar & another," under Section 420, 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
Earlier the FIR was registered by respondent no.2, alleging therein that the applicant no.1 got married with the respondent no.2 on the pretext that he was employed with NHRC (Home Ministry), but later on, respondent no.2 came to know that he was not working in that department. It is further alleged in the FIR that the Vishal and his family members has falsely implicated the respondent no.2 and her family members in false FIR. It is also alleged that the applicants harassed and assaulted the respondent no.2 for demand of dowry. After investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge- sheet against the applicants. Same was accepted by the Court. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and the summoning order was passed. Against the said order, criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
respondent no.2 has not interested in living with a joint family; she pressurized the applicant no.1 to leave the company of his father and sister and also asked the applicant no.1 to get his share in property, sell it and start living at Haridwar. He further submitted that the applicants have never beaten and harassed the complainant and they have been wrongly implicated in the FIR.
I have considered the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.
In my view, this is not a fit case where process of law has been misused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the High Court should interfere in rare cases. This Court does not find that this case comes under that category. The applicants should appear before the Court concerned and should say whatever they want to say.
The petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicants then prayed that in case offence is made out against the applicants, in that event, the applicants will surrender before the Courts below and will move the bail application and the Courts below may be directed to decide their bail application expeditiously.
In my view, every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Courts below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say that it should be decided strictly in accordance with law.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.2 is 70 years old, it is observed that in case applicant no.2 surrenders before the Courts below and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the Courts below, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law. It is further observed that in case applicant no.1 surrenders before the Courts below and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the Courts below, expeditiously, in accordance with law (V.K. Bist, J.) 16.5.2018 A.kaur