C482/386/2021 on 4 May, 2026

Uttarakhand High Court

C482/386/2021 on 4 May, 2026

                                                                2026:UHC:3366
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions             COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               C482/386/2021


                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned
counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the
State.

SPONSORED

3. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel
for respondent no.2.

4. Present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing
of the chargesheet, cognizance/
summoning order dated 07.08.2020
passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal
Case No. 618 of 2020, arising out of
offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as
the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in
question emanates from matrimonial
discord between applicant no.1
(husband) and respondent no.2 (wife).
It is contended that the marriage
between applicant no.1 and respondent
no.2 was solemnized in the year 2017,
and due to certain matrimonial
differences, the respondent no.2 lodged
the impugned F.I.R. against all the
2026:UHC:3366

applicants. Upon completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a chargesheet, on the basis
of which the learned trial court has
taken cognizance.

6. She would further submit that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. are false
and fabricated in nature; that,
applicant no.2 is the younger brother of
applicant no.1 and is residing
separately in Delhi for the purpose of
preparing for competitive examinations;
that, applicant no.3 is a married sister
living in her matrimonial home; and
that, applicant no.4 is the mother of
applicant no.1. It is argued that no
specific or credible allegations have
been made against applicant nos. 2 to 4
with regard to demand of dowry or acts
of cruelty; that, the implication of the
said applicants is stated to be with an
ulterior motive to harass them and
settle personal scores.

7. It is also contended that the
Investigating Officer has submitted the
chargesheet in a routine and
mechanical manner without proper
application of mind; that, continuation
of criminal proceedings against
applicant nos. 2 to 4 would amount to
abuse of the process of law, as there is
no material on record to prima facie
establish their involvement in the
alleged offences.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for
2026:UHC:3366

respondent no.2 would submit that the
applicants have subjected the
complainant to cruelty on account of
demand of dowry and have also
physically assaulted her and ousted her
from her matrimonial home; that, the
Investigating Officer, after due
investigation, has filed the chargesheet
and the learned Magistrate has rightly
taken cognizance of the offences.

9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.

10. Upon perusal of the F.I.R. and
other material on record, this Court
finds that the allegations against
applicant nos. 2 to 4 are general in
nature, without any specific instance of
cruelty or demand of dowry attributed
to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions, including Geeta
Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State
of Bihar, has held that in matrimonial
disputes, the tendency to implicate all
family members without specific
allegations must be discouraged, and in
the absence of specific role attributed to
the relatives, continuation of
proceedings against them would
amount to abuse of process of law.

11. In view of the aforesaid legal
position and considering the facts of
the present case, this Court is of the
opinion that no prima facie case is
2026:UHC:3366

made out against applicant nos. 2 to 4.

12. Accordingly, the chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
07.08.2020 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in
Criminal Case No. 618 of 2020, as well
as the entire proceedings of the said
case, are hereby quashed qua applicant
nos. 2 to 4. However, insofar as
applicant no.1 (husband) is concerned,
this Court finds that specific allegations
have been made against him, and
therefore, the proceedings against him
shall continue in accordance with law.

12. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is accordingly disposed of.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall
also stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.05.2026
Mamta

MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f

TA
3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6
7ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca

RANI
bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266
90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.05.06 11:38:37 +05’30’