Uttarakhand High Court
Mohit And Others .........Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-23.07.2025
Judgment delivered on:-08.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.1376 of 2022
Mohit and others .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the
State.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This C482 application has been filed by the
applicants for quashing and setting aside the charge
sheet dated 29.05.2020 and impugned summoning order
dated 07.12.2020, passed by learned Additional Civil
Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar
along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1167
of 2020, State Vs. Mohit and others, under Sections 498-
A, 323, 354, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an application
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent
no.2 on 25.06.2019 against applicant no.1/husband and
his family members accusing them of physically abuse
and dowry demand from her. Accordingly, learned
Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, converted the application
into a Complaint Case No.1090 of 2019, Smt. Shushma
Vs. Mohit and others and passed the summoning order
on 24.12.2021 to summon the applicants under Sections
498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequent to making the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an FIR No.446
of 2019 dated 29.08.2019 was also filed by the informant
against the applicants. In which the charge sheet was
submitted by Investigating Officer and the learned
Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, took cognizance in the said charge
sheet on 29.05.2020 and passed the summoning order
dated 07.12.2020 against the applicants under Section
498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that
the bare perusal of FIR clearly shows that the ingredients
of any of the offences against the applicants are not made
out and the Investigating Officer without proper
investigation has submitted the charge sheet in a
mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the applicants
vehemently argued that the learned Additional Civil
Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
without application of judicial mind has summoned the
applicants vide order dated 07.12.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that respondent no.2 has fabricated the whole story and
has falsely implicated the applicants. He also submits
that when an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
was already filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Laksar, why was there requirement of filing another FIR
on a later date by adding false charges. This conduct of
respondent no.2 clearly shows her ill intent against the
applicants.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants also
submits that while filing the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. on 25.06.2019 respondent no.2 did not
mention any incident of physical abuse by applicant no.4
which according to her had happened on 07.05.2019.
This alleged incident was only mentioned in the
subsequent FIR filed by her. He also submits that while
filing the FIR respondent no.2 did not disclose the fact
that she had already filed an application under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Laksar.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants also
submits that whole proceedings initiated against the
applicants by respondent no.2 is nothing but just an
attempt to pressurize and harass them. He further
submits that after a bare perusal of FIR no offence is
made out against them.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State
submits that the Investigating Officer did not have any
knowledge of the previous application filed by respondent
no.2 under Section 156(3) of CR.P.C., while lodging of the
FIR, during investigation and also filing of the charge
sheet. He further submits that the Investigating Officer
after completing a thorough investigation and on the
basis of statements under Section 161 CR.P.C. as well as
documentary evidence, filed the charge sheet under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 498-A of IPC and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
8. Both the learned counsel for the parties also
submitted that in the interest of justice and for convince
of parties the trial in both the courts can be consolidated
as per the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Section 210 of Cr.P.C. is quoted hereinbelow:-
"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a
complaint case and police investigation in respect of the
same offence.-(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than
on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint
case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the
course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an
investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the
offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held
by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such
enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the
police officer conducting the investigation.
(2)If a report is made by the investigating police officer
under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any
offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is
an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall
inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case
arising out of the police report as if both the cases were
instituted on a police report.
(3)If the police report does not relate to any accused in
the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take
cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall
proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in
accordance with the provisions of this Code."
11. Having heard learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of materials on record, this Court
is of the opinion that the present case consists of
multiple disputed questions of facts which can only be
settled before the trial court by a proper trial. This Court
is also of the considered opinion that the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the applicants regarding
multiple trials going-on against the applicants based on
same set of facts also appears to be fallacious as the bare
perusal of the complaint case and the FIR it is clearly
reflected that both the cases cannot be said to be arising
out of entirely on same set of facts. The perusal of the
FIR clearly shows that multiple other offences namely
Sections 323 and 354 of IPC are also alleged against the
applicants; therefore it will not be in the interest of
justice to consider both the trials together. Moreover, the
argument of learned counsel for consolidation of trial as
per provision of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. also does not hold
good as the plain reading of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. clearly
shows that powers under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. are to be
invoked only when the subject matter of the police report
case and complaint case are the same, which is clearly
not the case in the present case in hand.
12. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
08.08.2025
SK
