Uttarakhand High Court
Alvina vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 July, 2026
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1167 of 2017
31 July, 2026
1. Alvina
2: Smt. Gulshan
3: Vijendra Singh
--Applicants
Versus
1. State Of Uttarakhand
2: Smt. Parul
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned AGA with Mr. Manoj Bhatt,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of the present Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the
applicants have sought quashing of the impugned
charge sheet no. 192 of 2016 dated 21.12.2016,
cognizance order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar
in Criminal Case No. 701 of 2017 “State vs. Smt.
Gulshan & Others” under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342
and 498-A of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Ranipur,
District Haridwar and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 701 of 2017 “State vs. Smt.
Gulshan & Others” under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342
1
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
and 498-A of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
2. From order sheet it is evident that initially
notices were issued to the respondent no.2 and she
was duly represented by a counsel, however, later on,
a statement was made on 27.09.2022 on behalf of the
learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the counsel
does not represent respondent no.2 and fresh notices
be issued to the respondent. Service report dated
23.11.2022 reveals that notice sent to respondent no.2
has been received by her brother hence served
secondary. In such view of the matter, it is apparent
that though the notice of the pending proceedings
before this Court are known to respondent no.2 but
she does not appear to be interested in pursuing the
matter. Hence, the matter is being heard on merit.
3. Facts in brief for the purpose of adjudication of
the present criminal misc. application under Section
482 CrPC are as follows:
4. The respondent no.2 lodged an FIR dated
31.03 2016 against the applicants which was registered
as Case Crime No. 80 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504,
506, 342, and 498A IPC at Police Station Kotwali,
Ranipur District Haridwar with the allegations that on
11-5-2015 the respondent no. 2 married Arjun and since
then Arjun and applicants are torturing the respondent
no. 2 for and in connection with the demand of dowry
and on 25-8-2015 Arjun and applicants threatened to kill
her and again on 16-3-2016 when respondent no. 2 was
in her in-laws’ house, they locked her and abused her2
UKHC0100167220172026:UHC:6712
and also committed physical assault with her. A bare
perusal of the FIR would reveals that there are
allegations of Maarpeet and harassment etc. However,
there is no specific averment of cruelty for the purpose of
dowry demand.
5. The applicant no. 1 is the married sister-in-law
and applicant nos. 2 & 3 are mother-in-law and father-
in-law, respectively, of the respondent no. 2. It is stated
in the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that the
marriage of Arjun and respondent no.2 was solemnized
on 11-5-2015 and after the marriage respondent no. 2
and Arjun (husband) started to live in Delhi, since Arjun
was working at Delhi. Due to the adamant attitude of the
respondent no. 2, Arjun left the job and had withdrawn
all the relations from the applicants under the pressure
of respondent no. 2. Due to the ill behaviour of
respondent no. 2, the relations of applicants were
adversely affected with the respondent no. 2 and Arjun.
Consequently applicant nos. 2 & 3 disowned Arjun by
way of publication in the Newspaper. The respondent no.
2 and Arjun were residing at House No. A-111, Phase-1,
Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar separately. It is further the case
of the applicants that on 20-12-2015 when applicant no.
1 went to her brother’s rented house at A-111, Phase-I,
Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar then neighbour of Arjun told
the applicant no. 1 that on 14-12-2015 Arjun and
respondent no. 2 went to the parental house of
respondent no.2 i.e. Dheerwali Jwalapur, District
Haridwar and they have not returned till today. Then
applicant no. 1 tried to contact her brother Arjun on his
mobile number, but phone was switched off and since
3
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
then applicants are trying to search Arjun. Thereafter
applicant no. 1 submitted a missing report before Police
Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar on 24-12-
2015 and thereafter one complaint to S.S.P., Haridwar on
11-2-2016. It is further submitted that aggrieved from
the complaints preferred by the applicant no. 1 with
regard to abduction of Arjun, respondent no. 2 lodged
F.I.R. dated 31-3-2016 being case crime no. 80 of 2016,
U/s 232, 504, 506, 342 & 498-A I.P.C. at P.S. Kotwali
Ranipur, District Haridwar as a counterblast. It is further
submitted that during the pendency of investigation of
aforesaid F.I.R., respondent no. 2 filed a divorce suit
before the learned Family Court, Haridwar under section
13 of Hindu Marriage Act as O.S. No. 424 of 2016 and
the suit was decreed ex-parte by Family Court, Haridwar,
vide judgment and order dated 19.07.2017.
6. In pursuance to the FIR of the respondent
no.2, the investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet
dated 21-12-2016 against the applicants, and in
pursuance to the charge sheet, the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took cognizance
against the applicants vide cognizance order dated 28-4-
2017 and the case was registered as Criminal Case no.
701 of 2017 ‘State V/s Smt. Gulshan & others’ U/s 323,
504, 506, 342 & 498-A I.P.C., pertaining to Case Crime
No. 80 of 2016, P.S. Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar.
7. Assailing the charge sheet, cognizance order
and the entire proceedings of Case No.701 of 2017
learned counsel for the applicants submit that even a
bare reading of the FIR dated 31.03.2016 reveals that the
4
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
ingredients of offence under Section 498A IPC are not
established. He has drawn the attention of the Court of
Section 498-A IPC, which is reproduced hereunder for
ready reference:-
“498-A Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty means”–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.”
8. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that the basic ingredients of 498-A IPC regarding
the unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand, is totally absent in
the FIR and as such the very inception the criminal
proceedings against the applicants are flawed.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that
in fact the husband (Arjun) who is the son of applicant
no. 2 and 3 was living separately as will be evident from
rent agreement dated 08.11.2015, which is annexed as
5
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit in support of the Criminal
Misc. Application. Thus he would submit that father-in-
law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law have been residing
separately, and there has no connection with the couple
who were living separately.
10. He further submits that a number of
complaints were made to the authorities earlier regarding
the missing of Arjun and ultimately an FIR was lodged at
Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar on 25.08.2017 against
the in-laws and the respondent no.2 upon finding that
when applicant no. 1 went to her brother’s rented house
at A-111, Phase-I, Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar then
neighbour of Arjun told the applicant no. 1 that on 14-
12-2015, Arjun and respondent no. 2 went to the
parental house of respondent no.2 i.e. Dheerwali
Jwalapur, District Haridwar and they have not returned
till that day.
11. Referring to the Aadhaar cards of applicant
nos. 2 and 3, learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the applicant no. 2 was 64 years of age in 2016, and
now she is 74 years of age and the applicant no. 2 was
67 years of age in 2016, and now he is 77 years old. He
would further submit that by virtue of ex-parte divorce
6
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
decree dated 19.07.2017 passed by learned Family
Court, Haridwar in O.S. No. 424 of 2016, the marriage
between husband (Arjun) and respondent no. 2 has been
dissolved and it is for this reason that she has, in fact
stopped in participating in the further proceedings of this
case.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants has further
submitted that in fact, respondent no.2, after securing an
ex-parte divorce decree, has remarried with one Rahul. It
has been stated so in paragraph number 6 of the
rejoinder affidavit, and he has invited the attention of the
Court to paragraph No. 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, which
is being extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“6. That it is also pertinent to mention here that the
respondent no.2 has remarried now with one Rahul, resident
of Village Rohalki Kishanpur, Tehsil and District Haridwar
and she is living with her present husband. Further, her
name has also been enrolled in voter list with the name of
her present husband (Rahul), which is evident from
Panchayat Electoral List-2021. Thus, it is prima facie evident
on the face of record that the respondent no.2 has falsely
implicated the applicants in criminal case only to harass.”
13. Learned counsel for the applicants further
submitted that no useful purpose would be served in
letting the matter go into trial, inasmuch as respondent
no. 2 has already remarried and is living a happy family
life, and in fact, it would be in the interest of justice that
the matter may not be permitted to go into trial, and
7
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
inasmuch as it would be a harassment not only to the
applicants, but also the respondent no.2 and the
respondent no.2, in fact, is not even participating in the
proceedings before this Court.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sanjay D. Jain and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2090 and invited the attention of this
Court to para 9 and 10 which are being extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the
complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be
borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of
the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint,
even when taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out any case against the accused, quashing of the
proceedings would be justified. Vague and general
allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As
regards the ingredients for making out an offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is
concerned, the requirement is 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 latter part of the provision refers to
harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security raised by the husband or
his relatives. These aspects have been considered in detail
in a recent decision in Digambar and Another (supra) (to
which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was, was a
party).
10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety
indicates that statements of a general nature have been
made therein as against the present appellants. The
complainant states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone
to her parental house, she had received a call from her8
UKHC0100167220172026:UHC:6712
mother-in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery.
When she returned to her matrimonial house on
30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family
members. Except this statement, all other statements are of
a general nature as well as vague without any particulars.
There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint
without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be noted
that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated
in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to
be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his
family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted
with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim
to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such
allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find
that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie
case for proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code
has been made out against the appellants.
15. Placing reliance on the said para nos. 9 and
10, learned counsel for the applicants would submit the
case of the applicants is squarely covered by the said
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inasmuch as in
the said judgment regarding the ingredients for making
out an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, it
has been held that the requirement is 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. Learned counsel for the
applicants would submit that the even a bare reading of
the FIR reveals that nothing is made out according the
present facts and circumstances of the case. He further
submits that it is also to be noted that for the purpose of
constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the
explanation to the said provision must be stated to be
inflicted. In the present case that cruelty aspect is
missing and hence no case is made out under Section
498-A IPC and further other sections do not have been
invoked and as such in view of the facts and
9
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
circumstances of the case and in view of the position of
law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sanjay D. Jain and others (supra), in the
interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of
law, the present Criminal Misc. Application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the
proceedings deserve to be quashed.
16. Per contra learned counsel for the State
submits that charge sheet has been filed against the
applicants after thorough investigation under Section
498A and other sections, and as such, case is made out,
and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haridwar has not committed any error in passing the
impugned summoning order, and hence, it is submitted
that since the charge sheet has been submitted after due
investigation, and cognizance has been taken, there is no
scope for interference under Section 482 CrPC.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the record and particularly on a
thread bare reading of the FIR, it is evident that the
aspect of cruelty for the purpose of the necessary
ingredients to constitute cruelty as envisaged in the
explanation under Section 498-A (b) of IPC are totally
absent, though there are several other allegations
regarding commission of marpeet, etc. but they do not
have any bearing inasmuch as it is the case of the
applicants that they have been living separately and the
couple in fact was living separately in a rented
accommodation as it is evident from the rent agreement.
10
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
It is also striking feature of the case that in fact the
husband (Arjun) has gone missing and in fact he has
been last seen with the respondent no.2 and his in-laws.
It is also clear from record that decree of divorce has
been passed in favour of the respondent no.2 and
thereafter she has remarried. Hence, in such view of the
matter, particularly when the respondent no. 2 is not
participating in the proceedings of the present criminal
case, it would be in the interest of justice that the matter
should not be permitted to go into trial inasmuch as the
respondent no.2 is not willing and ready to participate in
the proceedings.
18. In this context, a reference is also to be made
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of “B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and
another” reported (2003) 4 SCC 675, where in
somewhat similar situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has granted the indulgence and the said judgment has
been followed by this Court in several judgments. Hence,
after considering the entire conspectus of the case and in
view of the settled position of law on the subject, it would
be an abuse of process of law if the matter is permitted to
go to the trial. Consequently, the present Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C deserves to be
allowed and in the interest of justice the charge sheet,
summoning order and entire proceeding deserve to be
quashed.
19. The Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. The
charge sheet no. 192 of 2016 dated 21.12.2016,
cognizance order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the learned
11
UKHC010016722017
2026:UHC:6712
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in
Criminal Case No. 701 of 2017 “State vs. Smt. Gulshan &
Others” under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 498-A of
IPC, Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar
and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 701 of
2017 “State vs. Smt. Gulshan & Others” under Sections
323, 504, 506, 342 and 498-A of IPC, pending in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar
are hereby quashed.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
31.07.2026
Nahid
12
