22 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2669 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

22 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 August, 2025

                                                       2025:UHC:7488



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1763 of 2017
                         22 August, 2025


Sanjay Singh Bhandari @ Sanjay Bhandari and others

                                             -------------Applicants
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

                                             ----------Respondents


Presence:-

M. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by
Mr. Akshay Latwal, AGA for the State.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Oral)

By means of present Criminal Misc.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants are seeking to quash the summoning order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal Case No. 5469 of 2017, State vs. Sanjay Bhandari & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants have further prayed to quash the charge-sheet no. 183 of 2017 dated 02.11.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant no.1-Sanjay Singh Bhandari got married on 25.11.2016

2025:UHC:7488 to Smt. Komal Negi @ Kamla Negi D/o respondent no.2- Shri Heera Singh Negi. As per the case of the applicant no.1, the D/o respondent no.2 was not happy with the marriage and after 15-20 days of her marriage, she came back to her parental house from her matrimonial house; that no demand of dowry was ever raised by him or his family members and the marriage was solemnized without any dowry; that the applicant no. 2 Lata Manral alias Babita Manral is the sister of applicant no.1 and is having two children and is living separately at Haldwani; that applicant no. 3 is the mother of applicant no.1 and after the death of father of the applicant no.1, his mother was totally dependent upon him and is living at Agra; that after the marriage, daughter of respondent no. 2 instead of living in Agra wanted to live at Haldwani; that the applicant no.1 did not want to leave his old ailing mother; that the daughter of respondent no. 2 was avoiding to reside with the applicant no.1, as such, the applicant no.1 filed case No. 609 of 2017, Sanjay Singh vs. Kamla Negi, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Family Judge, Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that on 19th June, 2017, the applicant no.1 and his mother (applicant no.3) went to the house of the respondent no.2 for meeting applicant no.1's wife and for taking her back to home, then the respondent no.2 assaulted the applicant no.1 and threatened to lodge an FIR against him and his entire family. On 28.07.2017 and 05.08.2017, the applicant no.1 and his married sister (applicant no. 2) moved an application to S.S.P., Nainital. As a counterblast, an FIR was lodged against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections

2025:UHC:7488 32, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1644 of 2017, Lata Manral @ Babita Manral and others vs. State and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2017 Sanjay Singh Bhandari vs. State, and this Hon'ble Court granted stay of arrest to the applicants and later on, on 02.11.2017, when the charge-sheet was filed and the summoning order was issued against the applicants, they approached, this Hon'ble Court challenging the said summoning order in present C-482 Petition No. 1763 of 2017, in which, an interim order was granted to them on 20.12.2017, by which, the further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5469 of 2017, were stayed.

5. On 21.02.2018, the Court directed the presence of the parties for mediation at Mediation Centre of this Court and the Mediator has submitted its report dated 14.03.2018 that the Mediation was not successful. Despite time been granted to respondent no.2 for filing the counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2.

6. Counsel for the applicants filed a Supplementary Affidavit (IA No. 2247 of 2022) and contended that the parties to the present C-482 Petition have settled their disputes in terms of the Compromise which was placed on record along with Supplementary Affidavit. The said I.A. No. 2247 of 2022 was allowed on 28.09.2022. The counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted on the said date that he has no instructions

2025:UHC:7488 on behalf of respondent no.2, as such, fresh notices were issued to the said respondent no.2 and Office Report indicates that on 26.10.2022, the notices were received by respondent no.2.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per the compromise reached between the applicants and the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 was paid an amount of Rs. 85,000/- in cash and other ornaments of daughter of respondent no.2 was returned to him. It was further contended that in Civil Suit No. 117 of 2021, filed by the daughter of respondent no. 2 under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the decree of divorce was granted in favour of daughter of respondent no.2 on 14.01.2022, and thereafter, the daughter of respondent no.2 solemnized her marriage with some other person. The copy of the decree of divorce and the compromise along with the photographs of the marriage of daughter of respondent no.2 with some another person was also enclosed with the Supplementary Affidavit.

8. The counsel for the applicants, as such, contends that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants by the respondent no.2 was a counterblast to the complaint made by applicants and as now a compromise has been reached between the parties, and the daughter of respondent no.2 has been granted divorce and she has re-married, as such, the criminal proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of

2025:UHC:7488 Judgments has held that the Courts can exercise their inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in 2025 INSC 8 in para 11 has held as under:

"11. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2003 SCC Online SC 951, whereunder this Court, in so far as it is relevant, held thus: -

"34.........it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation...."

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicants by the respondent no. 2 was intended with mala fide

2025:UHC:7488 and was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to indict the applicants due to personal grudge. The applicant no. 2-Lata Manral, who is married sister of the applicant no.1 and was living separately, with her husband and the applicant no.3, who is mother of applicant no.1, were implicated in the case to settle the personal scores.

11. In view of the above, the summoning order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal Case No. 5469 of 2017, State vs. Sanjay Bhandari & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the entire Criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The present C-482 petition stands allowed.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 22.08.2025 Kaushal