Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Ravi Kumar And Others on 24 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No. 800 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel,
holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned
counsel for the applicants.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned D.A.G.
alongwith Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. The present criminal misc. application
has been filed by the applicants with a
prayer to quash/set-aside the summoning
order dated 16.04.2025 passed in
Complaint Case No. 336 of 2024, Pooja Vs.
Ravi Kumar and Others, by the court of 2nd
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar and
the entire proceedings arising out from it.
4. The case of the applicants is that
applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are
husband and wife, who got married on
06.03.2022 at Haridwar. Thereafter, some
matrimonial disputes arose between them
and respondent no. 2 filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same
was treated as the complaint case and was
registered as Complaint Case No. 336 of
2024. Thereafter, on 16.04.2025,
summoning order was passed in this
Complaint Case by the court of 2nd
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar
under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC
and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the allegations levelled
against the applicants are general and
vague in nature and just to harass them,
this complaint case has been lodged. It is
further submitted that admittedly the
husband is a resident of State of Uttar
Pradesh and not of State of Uttarakhand
and allegations of dowry and harassment,
if occurred, were entirely within the State
of Uttar Pradesh, which is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of Haridwar. It is
further submitted that the learned Judicial
Magistrate, without application of mind,
has passed the summoning order dated
16.04.2025.
6. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the impugned summoning
order dated 16.04.2025 reveals that the
evidence collected was placed before the
learned court below, which, after applying
its judicial mind, has rightly summoned the
applicant.
8. This Court further finds that the
contention of the applicants regarding
allegations levelled are false and
fabricated, are matters of defence, which
cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The
sufficiency or reliability of evidence is not
to be examined while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As
far as the contention of learned counsel for
the applicant regarding complaint case
been filed outside the territorial jurisdiction
is concerned, this statement cannot be
sustained, as complaint (wife) has her
maternal house at Haridwar, where this
case has been filed.
9. At this stage, this Court cannot
examine the reliability or truthfulness of
such statements, as the same are matters
to be considered during trial.
10. The court concerned has considered &
discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the
view taken by the learned Judicial
Magistrate concerned cannot be faulted.
This Court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned summoning
order dated 16.04.2025 passed in
Complaint Case No. 336 of 2024, Pooja Vs.
Ravi Kumar and Others, by the court of 2nd
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
Hence, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the criminal misc.
application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Mahra J.)
24.04.2026
Ujjwal
