Uttarakhand High Court
Shatrunjai Pundir vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 9 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 03.03.2025
Judgment delivered on: 09.04.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.72 of 2023
Shatrunjai Pundir ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi and Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned
A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Dobal, learned Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has challenged the summoning/cognizance order
dated 15.11.2022, passed by learned Sixth Additional Civil
Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No.7459 of 2022, State Vs. Shatrunjai,
punishable u/s 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC, arising out of FIR
No.106 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022, registered with Police
Station Raipur, District Dehradun, along with the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
2. The facts in brief are that the applicant and
respondent No.3 got married on 07.10.2019 as per Hindu
Rites and Customs. Respondent No.3 on 28.02.2022 lodged
an FIR against the applicant and her in-laws alleging that
since, the very beginning, applicant and his family were not
satisfied with the gifts received and arrangements made in
the wedding, because of this reason they used to taunt and
humiliate respondent No.3. It is also alleged by respondent
No.3 that the applicant used to say that he has no feelings
for her and also used to avoid marital cohabitation. She
further alleged that her husband is an alcoholic and on
25.10.2019 at around 10:00 AM, when respondent No.3
tried to stop the applicant from taking alcohol, he slapped
2
her and also threatened her of more severe consequences
next time, if she ever stops him from drinking. In the FIR, it
is also alleged that the in-laws/parents of applicant, used
to humiliate respondent No.3 by comparing her to servants
working in the house. She also alleged that on 28.10.2019
i.e. only 20 days after marriage, applicant flew to
Newzealand and has never returned since then and has
treated respondent No.3 and her family members with
constant ignorance.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that the impugned FIR is concocted and is far
from truth and is filed just to harass the applicant and his
family members and to extort money from them. He
submits that respondent No.3 has reluctant and negative
behavior and is suffering from mental anxiety, which fact
was admitted by respondent No.3. He further submits that
applicant and his family members did all possible things to
treat her mental illness and treated her with utmost care
and affection.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant had booked ticket of
respondent No.3 to Newzealand so that she could
accompany him but she had to stay in India as her visa
was rejected, and, thereafter, strict covid guidelines
prevented her to accompany the applicant. He also
contends that on the alleged date on which the applicant is
said to slap respondent No.3, they both had gone to open a
bank account and this can be verified by documentary
evidence. It is further contended by him that charge-sheet
against the applicant was submitted in a routine manner,
to which learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and
issued summons without applying its judicial mind.
5. Learned State Counsel submits on the basis of
its counter affidavit that the investigation was done with
3
utmost diligence and the veracity of documentary evidence
and photographs submitted by the applicant could only be
proved by a proper trial. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for respondent No.2 that statement of respondent
No.3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima-facie proved a case
u/s 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and after due investigation,
charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate
under aforesaid Sections.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 in its
counter affidavit states that the respondent No.3 tried her
best to save her matrimonial relation but succumbed due
to adamant behavior of her husband and in-laws. It is also
stated in counter affidavit that the applicant-husband
didn’t help her with spouse visa, so she couldn’t
accompany him to Newzealand. It is further stated that in
spite of all possible efforts to save her marriage, respondent
No.3 was left completely broken, when she received a legal
notice for divorce from her husband.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed
rejoinder affidavit. In its rejoinder affidavit it is stated that
even after submitting documentary evidence and
photographs to Investigating Officer, and the Investigating
Officer mechanically submitted the charge-sheet by taking
the contents of FIR as goofed truth. It is further stated that
the FIR is filed by respondent No.3 with oblique motives
and to extort money from the applicant and is thus an
abuse of process of law.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire
material available on record. Since, the offences lodged
against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima-
facie made out a case against the applicant, it is essential
for the ends of justice that the applicant should be
subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments,
4
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court
should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings,
if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008)
12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:-
“12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every
High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great
caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the
court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of
the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of
the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing
injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific
provisions in the Statute.”
9. Recently, in the case of Neeharika,
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401,
it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal
case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub-
paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted
hereunder:-
“33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest
of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the
context of death penalty).
33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;
33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out
a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR;
5
10. After keeping the above principle in mind, this
Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out
against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been
submitted and the applicant was summoned after
cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case
at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only
be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce
their respective evidences.
11. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
12. Interim order dated 12.01.2023 stands vacated.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.04.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6
aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
NEGI
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229
D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.04.09 14:43:56 +05’30’
