Kiran Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 July, 2026

    0
    5
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    Kiran Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 July, 2026

                                                UKHC010060772024
    
    
    
                                                           2026:UHC:5343
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Misc. Application No. 742 of 2024
    
    Kiran Pal Singh and Others                  .... Applicants
    
                                   Versus
    
    State of Uttarakhand and Another                  ... Respondents
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Presence:-
    Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
    Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned D.A.G. for the State.
    Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
    Disha Vashisth, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
    

    By means of the present Criminal Misc.

    Application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the

    SPONSORED

    applicants have sought quashing of cognizance/

    summoning order dated 17.11.2023 passed by learned

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District

    Haridwar in league with entire proceedings of Complaint

    Case No. 1770 of 2022 ‘Sachin Kumar Vs. Kiran Pal &

    others‘ for the offences punishable under sections

    323,504 & 506 of IPC, pending before the Court of

    Additional Chief Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

    2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent

    no. 2 filed a complaint against the present applicants,

    which got registered as Complaint Case No. 1770 of 2022

    1
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    ‘Sachin Kumar Vs. Kiran Pal & others
    ‘ before the Court of

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District

    Haridwar stating therein that the marriage of respondent

    no. 2 was solemnized with the daughter of applicant no.

    1 and sister of applicant nos. 2 & 3 namely Pooja on

    23.04.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and the

    said marriage was ideal marriage without and dowry.

    Out of the said wedlock, one son was born on

    17.06.2016. It is further alleged that after the marriage,

    behaviour of Pooja was cruel towards respondent no. 2

    and his family members due to which on 30.08.2019, the

    applicants came to the house of respondent no. 2 and the

    wife of respondent no. 2 joined their company for going

    towards her parental house and when the respondent no.

    2 requested her that due to her various visits to her

    parental house, their matrimonial life was not

    functioning smoothly then the wife of respondent no. 2

    has threatened him for dire consequences. Thereafter,

    the applicants had taken his wife alongwith them and

    thereafter the respondent no. 2 made various requests to

    his wife to come back to her matrimonial house but she

    refused for the same.

    3. It is further alleged in the complaint that on

    27-08-2022 at about 05.00 PM, when the respondent no.

    2

    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    2 was standing in a shop, the applicant no. 1 came there

    and told that he had spoiled the life of his daughter and

    abused him and also gave him proposal to pay Rs. 20

    lacs and give divorce to his daughter, failing which, he

    will face dire consequences. Immediately thereafter, the

    respondent no. 2 dialed no. 112 and the police reached at

    the spot and took them to the Police Station where

    looking into the family dispute (as both were relatives),

    the matter was settled between the parties in presence of

    police as well as other witnesses and thereafter when the

    applicants and the respondent no. 2 came out from the

    Police Station, then the applicant nos. 2 & 3 have

    threatened the respondent no. 2 for dire consequences

    but due to intervention of other persons, they took to

    their heels from there. Thereafter, at about 08.20 p.m.,

    when the respondent no. 2 returned home and reached

    at Double Fatak, then the applicants with common

    intention and carrying sticks and other weapons in their

    hand abused the respondent no. 2 and started

    committing marpeet with him and also snatched the

    golden chain of the respondent no. 2. However, the

    passers-by have saved the life of respondent no. 2 and

    thereafter they gave warning that if he does not pay Rs.

    20 lacs to his wife and does not give divorce to her, he

    3
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    will face dire consequences in future and immediately

    thereafter the respondent no. 2 got medically examined

    himself in the hospital concerned and also made a

    complaint against the applicants at Police Station

    concerned. However, the Police did not lodge FIR against

    the applicants. Thereafter, he sent a letter to S.S.P.

    Haridwar through registered post on 19.09.2022. When

    no heed was paid, the respondent no. 2 had no other

    option but to file the present complaint against the

    applicants vide his application dated 06.10.2022 with a

    prayer to lodge an FIR against the applicants.

    4. In support of the complaint, the respondent

    no. 2 recorded his statements under Sections 200 & of

    the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before the

    trial court in which they have supported the version of

    complaint and based on the complaint & statements

    under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C, the impugned

    summoning order has been passed.

    5. Assailing the summoning order and the

    complaint, the learned counsel for the applicants would

    submit that admittedly, the respondent no. 2 was son-in-

    law of applicant no. 1 and brother-in-law of applicant

    nos. 2 & 3. As there was some matrimonial dispute

    going on between the respondent no. 2 and his wife, the

    4
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    applicant no.1 being the father tried to reconcile the

    issue and on the fateful date of incident i.e. 27.08.2022,

    the applicant no.1 tried to settle the said dispute but the

    respondent no.2 who just to give criminal colour to a

    matrimonial dispute dialed 112 and called the police at

    the spot but thereafter when the entire facts were

    brought to the notice of the Police of Police Station

    Roorkee, District Haridwar, they settled the dispute in

    the form of compromise and in the said compromise,

    both the parties were ready to settle the dispute amicably

    and did not want to prosecute each other in any manner

    vide compromise/agreement dated 27.08.2022.

    6. It has been further submitted that the

    respondent no. 2 got married with the daughter of

    applicant no. 1 and from said wedlock, one male child

    was born, but it is the respondent no. 2 who had extra

    marital affairs with one Shipra, who is wife of Sumit

    Nayak and without obtaining any decree of divorce from

    her husband used to reside with the respondent no. 2.

    This was the sole reason for matrimonial dispute of the

    daughter of applicant no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 and

    the applicant no. 1 being the father, tried to reconcile the

    issue with the respondent no.2 but the respondent no.2

    with some ulterior motive got instituted the case against

    5
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    the present applicants so that he can settle his score

    with his wife according to his whims and fancies.

    7. It has been next submitted that to

    clarify/prove the act of the respondent no. 2 is clear from

    the fact that a declaration was given by Shipra and her

    husband Sumit Nayak in the form of affidavit on which

    was taken place on 30.06.2022 in which she clearly

    stated in paragraph no. 4 that she without obtaining

    decree of divorce from her earlier husband used to reside

    with the respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 25.06.2022 due to which

    it is not possible that she reside with her earlier husband

    and this is the sole reason for matrimonial dispute of

    respondent no. 2 and his wife and on the fateful date of

    incident, the applicant no. 1 being the father, tried to

    reconcile the issue and requested the respondent no. 2

    not to blemish the life of his daughter and when the

    respondent no. 2 remained adamant to reside with Shilpi,

    then some altercation took place between them and

    thereafter the matter was settled before the police

    station, but the respondent no. 2 just to mount pressure

    upon the applicants, got filed the instant complaint

    against them, which is nothing but just to save him from

    clutches of law.

    6

    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343

    8. It is further pleaded on behalf of the applicants

    that the respondent no. 2 who had earlier married with

    the daughter of applicant no. 1 and without taking any

    decree of divorce from the competent court of law had

    kept another woman in his house due to which the

    matrimonial life of the applicant’s daughter was

    disturbed and the applicant being the father tried to

    reconcile the issue, but due to some extreme

    consideration, the respondent no. 2 cooked up a false

    and frivolous story narrating a different story of marpeet,

    filed complaint against the applicants, which has never

    taken place.

    9. It has also been submitted on behalf of the

    applicants that without considering the entire material

    evidence available on record and only taking the version

    of the respondent no. 2 as true and without considering

    the fact that the date on which the incident has been

    shown by the respondent no. 2 was settled before the

    police Station Roorkee, in a routine manner and without

    applying its judicious mind, the cognizance has been

    taken by the Trial Court.

    10. Learned counsel for the applicants would next

    submit that on the particular date, i.e. 27.08.2022, the

    matter was settled at 5:00 in the evening but it is alleged

    7
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    that at around 8:00 / 8:30, the applicants have beaten

    the respondent no.2 for which medical examination was

    also conducted.

    11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

    respondent no.2 has placed on record the medical

    examination report and the photographs in which the

    respondent no.2 is shown in an injured state. He would

    submit that the summoning order also indicates that this

    fact was before the trial court before the summoning

    order was passed. Learned Senior Advocate has also

    referred to para 7 of the complaint in which it has been

    stated that the accused have committed marpeet in

    which the respondent no.2/complainant had sustained

    serious injuries. He submitted the report to the Police

    Station Rookee on 27.08.2022, but the police did not

    take any action, therefore, he has filed the complaint.

    12. In reply, the learned counsel for the applicants

    would submit that in the peculiar facts and

    circumstances of the case, the complaint is absolutely

    false and frivolous in as much as the statement of the

    witnesses under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. appear to be

    doubtful. After taking the Court to the statements under

    Section 202 Cr.P.C., he would submit that Vinay

    Kumar Saini was witness of the settlement but in the

    8
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    statements under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., he showed

    ignorance about the persons who have committed the

    marpeet. He would submit that if the statements of

    Vinay Kumar Saini recorded under Section 202 of the

    Cr.P.C. are compared with para 6 of the complaint,

    wherein, it is stated that the complainant was rescued by

    the passers-by, thus a false and frivolous case has been

    set up by the complainant/respondent no.2 and it’s a

    vexation litigation just to implicate the accused persons

    due to personal and private grudge and as such the case

    of the applicants would be covered by the judgment of

    the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State

    of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others

    reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and he specifically

    refers to the illustrations (3) and (7) at para 102 which

    are being extracted hereunder :-

    “102. …

    (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
    made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
    collected in support of the same do not disclose
    the commission of any offence and make out a
    case against the accused.

    (7) Where a criminal proceeding is
    manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
    where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
    with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
    on the accused and with a view to spite him due
    to private and personal grudge.”

    13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

    complainant / respondent no.2 would submit that the

    9
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    contentions raised doubting the veracity of the

    statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202

    of the Cr.P.C. would fall in the domain of evidence which

    has to be gone into at the trial stage and in exercise of

    power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., High Court

    cannot travel into factual arena. He has placed on record

    the medical examination report whose reference is made

    in para 7 of the complaint and he would submit that the

    complainant / respondent no.2 was badly thrashed by

    the applicants which is clear from the photographs,

    which are part of the lower court record as well as the

    medical evidence which is on record of the trial court.

    14. It is evident from the record that the incident

    as per the complaint occurred at 8:00 – 8:30 on

    27.08.2022, in which, it is alleged that the

    applicants/accused had beaten the respondent no.2 very

    badly for which he also underwent medical examination

    in Shri J.N.S.M. Government Hospital, Roorkee. The

    contention has been raised on behalf of the applicants

    that the complaint has been filed since the daughter of

    the applicant no.1 is the wife of respondent no.2 and the

    respondent no.2 was living with some other lady and just

    because they opposed the same, a false and frivolous

    complaint has been filed. He would further submit that

    10
    UKHC010060772024

    2026:UHC:5343
    all the evidence regarding the aforesaid contentions have

    been placed on record.

    15. After considering the entire facts and

    circumstances of the case, it is evident that the

    summoning order has been passed by the learned Trial

    Court after perusal of the entire record and after relying

    upon the statements of the complainant and the

    witnesses recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C..

    What is being contended on behalf of the applicants

    certainly falls for examination during trial and on this

    count in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the

    Cr.P.C., this Court cannot enter into factual arena.

    Moreover, there is medical examination report, which

    duly corroborates the version of the complaint. In such a

    factual matrix, it is not a fit case for exercise of powers

    under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, no error is

    found in the impugned summoning order.

    16. Hence, the present Criminal Misc. Application

    (C482 Application) is dismissed. Interim order stands

    vacated.

    17. Pending Application(s), if any, stands disposed

    of accordingly.

    (Siddhartha Sah, J.)
    03.07.2026
    Shiv/

    11



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here