Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:675
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2476 of 2023
19th May, 2025
Shaikh Zeyad Khalid and Ors. --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ali Bin Saif, learned counsel for applicants, appeared
through video conferencing.
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Anchit Khokher, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Restoration Application (MCRC/6/2025) Today, the matter is listed on restoration application (MCRC/6/2025). It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the restoration application is within time and is filed by him to recall the order dated 10.02.2025, whereby, the said C482 application was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. There is no objection from the side of respondents, if the order passed by this Court on 10.02.2025 is recalled.
3. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since, the recall application is filed within time and further there is no objection from the side of the respondents, the restoration application (MCRC/ 6/2025) is allowed on the basis of the sufficient grounds mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of restoration application.
12025:UHC:675
4. The order dated 10.02.2025 is hereby recalled and the C482 application is restored to its original number.
C482/2476/2023
5. Heard C482 application finally.
6. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the impugned summoning order dated 28.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.1843 of 2023, Smt. Eram Khan Vs. Sheikh Ziyad Khalid and Ors., under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the entire proceedings of the above Complaint Case.
7. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against the applicants under the aforementioned Sections. As per her complaint, the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 got married on 12.11.2021 as per the Muslim Rituals and Rites. After one year of marriage, respondent No.2 left her matrimonial house and started staying in her parental house. She further stated in her complaint that her father, who is a retired person, had spent Rs.40,00,000/- in her wedding, but her in-laws were not happy with the goods given at her wedding and started misbehaving and harassing her mentally and physically and ask her to bring Rs.50,00,000/- in cash. Her in-laws threatened her with life if their demands would not be fulfilled. She also stated in her complaint that on 22.10.2022, at about 08:00 A.M., her in-laws again demanded dowry, beaten her and throw her out of the house in only the clothes she was wearing on.
22025:UHC:675 Respondent No.2 also mentioned in her complaint that an application in this regard was given at Kotwali Kashipur dated 15.03.2023, on which counseling took place between respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 at Women's helpline Kashpur, in which, no result was found and no legal action was taken by the Police.
8. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint case which was registered as Criminal Case No.1843 of 2023, Smt. Eram Khan Vs. Sheikh Ziyad Khalid and Ors., in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. After going through the complaint and the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that prima-facie the offences under the aforementioned Sections are made out against the applicants and took cognizance on 28.08.2023 and summoned them to face the trial under the aforementioned Sections. Thus, the applicants are before this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present matter is arising out of a matrimonial dispute; it is not an FIR case it is a complaint case filed by the respondent No.2-wife. He further submits that the respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint case against the applicants with malafide intentions to falsely implicate them in order to pressurize them to meet her unlawful demands. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed on record the whatsapp chats and documents to substantiate his argument. He further submits that the applicants are residents of Aligarh, Muzaffarnagar, Azamgarh in U.P. and Delhi, in that situation, before issuing process against the applicants/ accused persons, an inquiry as contemplated under 3 2025:UHC:675 Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. shall be conducted by the learned Magistrate.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended in its counter affidavit that the respondent No.2 had filed the complaint case as she was harassed several times by the applicants. It is further contended that the applicants are very resourceful people and they somehow managed to stop the concerned police authorities from registering the FIR. It is also contended that despite being in knowledge of the fact that a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed against the applicant No.1, he did not appear before the learned trial court and the said case was decided ex-party and an order to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/- p.m. was passed, but the applicant No.1 is not paying any amount to his estranged wife-respondent No.2.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the offences lodged against the applicants are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a case where the Court should interfere with. Moreover, the veracity of the whatsapp chat and documents attached by the learned counsel for the applicants can only be ascertained by the learned Trial Court. This Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to sift the evidence and when prima-facie case is made out against the applicants, this Court cannot enter into the merits of the case at this stage. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicants regarding the fact that no inquiry as mandated under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. was done is concerned, on perusing the material available on record, this Court has no hesitation in 4 2025:UHC:675 saying that this is just a blatant statement made by the learned counsel for the applicants, as the learned Trial Court by examining the witnesses produced by prosecution, has taken sufficient care to assure that prima-facie, case is made out against the applicants/ accused persons.
12. In view of the above, the present C482 application is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.05.2025 PN Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, PREETI NEGI 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac 55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE0644 98483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.20 16:03:11 +05'30' 5