[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 528 Of Bnss vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 10 December, 2025
2025:UHC:10966
Reserved on 10.11.2025
Delivered on 10.12.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024
(Under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023)
Parvej Aalam & Anr. .....Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. Bhaskar Ch. Joshi, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Vijay
Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been
instituted for quashing/setting-aside the judgment and
order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision
No.209 of 2024, titled as "Parvej & Anr. Vs. State of
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
Uttarakhand & Anr.", the summoning order dated
02.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First,
Haridwar as well as the entire criminal proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 2545 of 2022, titled as "Talib Husain vs.
Usman and Others", pending against them for offences
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The facts, to the extent necessary for adjudication,
are that the marriage of Sana @ Soni, daughter of
Respondent No. 2, was solemnized with one Usman (brother-
in-law of Applicant No.1) on 13.11.2016. Applicant No. 1 is
the husband of Applicant No.2. The Applicants were married
in the year 2012 and, ever since their marriage, have been
residing separately at Village Bongla, Police Station
Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, whereas the complainant's
daughter was residing with her husband and in-laws at
Village Meerpur, Police Station Kotwali Ranipur.
3. The proceedings commenced on an application
filed under Section 156(3) of the erstwhile Code, wherein
general allegations were levelled against the entire family of
the husband. By order dated 04.02.2023, the learned
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
Magistrate declined to summon the present Applicants, inter
alia observing that the Applicants were living separately and
no witness had attributed any specific act of cruelty or
dowry harassment to them.
4. The complainant preferred Criminal Revision No.
28 of 2023, titled as "Talib Husain vs. State & Others", which
came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.02.2023.
Subsequently, a second revision, being Criminal Revision
No. 49 of 2023, "Talib Husain vs. State & Others" was filed
and allowed on 22.11.2023, directing reconsideration of the
summoning order dated 04.02.2023. Thereafter, by order
dated 08.02.2024, the learned Magistrate summoned all
accused, including the present Applicants. The Applicants
assailed that order through Criminal Revision No. 76 of
2024, titled as "Usman Malik and Others vs. State and Anr.",
which was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated
13.05.2024 and the matter was remanded for fresh
consideration with respect to the Applicants alone.
5. Upon remand, the learned Magistrate passed the
impugned summoning order dated 02.07.2024 again
directing the issuance of process against the Applicants.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
Criminal Revision No. 209 of 2024 filed by the Applicants
was dismissed on 20.11.2024, which has led to the
institution of the present proceedings.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that
the Applicants are distant relatives who have never resided
with the complainant's daughter in a shared household. It
was argued that the allegations are omnibus and un-
particularized, lacking any specific overt act against the
Applicants.
8. It was further submitted that the earlier finding of
the Magistrate, that no material existed against the
Applicants, has not been displaced by any new evidence.
9. According to the learned counsel for the
Applicants, the summoning order dated 02.07.2024 reflects
non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
10. Learned State Counsel opposed the application and
submitted that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance
and found material sufficient for summoning, the
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS ought to
be exercised sparingly. It was contended that the issues
raised by the Applicants can be appropriately adjudicated
during trial.
11. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of
Respondent No. 2 to contest the present proceedings.
12. Upon due consideration, this court observes that
the scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is
circumscribed by the requirement that the power be
exercised either to prevent abuse of process or to secure the
ends of justice. At the stage of summoning, the court is
required to assess whether there exists a prima facie case or
a grave suspicion against the accused. The High Court,
while exercising inherent jurisdiction, does not undertake a
meticulous appreciation of evidence but may certainly
intervene where the summoning order demonstrably suffers
from non-application of mind or where the allegations, even
if taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients
of the alleged offences.
13. The complaint, as well as the statements of CW-1,
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
CW-2 and CW-3, discloses that the Applicants were married
in 2012 and have lived separately ever since. No specific
incident of cruelty, assault or demand of dowry has been
attributed to them. The allegations against the Applicants
are general in nature, stated in sweeping terms, and do not
disclose any proximate act which would attract the penal
provisions invoked in the complaint.
14. It is also pertinent that the initial summoning
order dated 04.02.2023 had specifically recorded that no
material existed against the Applicants. The subsequent
orders, including the impugned order dated 02.07.2024, do
not refer to any additional material which emerged post-
remand. In the absence of any new material, a reversal of
the earlier exculpatory finding, without cogent reasoning,
manifests non-application of judicial mind.
15. In matrimonial disputes, there is, at times, a
tendency to implicate all members of the husband's family
regardless of their actual role. While every genuine
complaint must be addressed strictly in accordance with
law, the criminal process cannot be permitted to operate on
the basis of omnibus allegations against relatives who
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
neither reside in the matrimonial home nor have any
demonstrable connection with the alleged acts.
16. The revisional order dated 20.11.2024 also does
not cure the fundamental infirmity in the summoning order.
The learned revisional court has affirmed the summoning
order without adverting to the absence of specific
allegations, the earlier finding of the Magistrate in favour of
the Applicants, or the absence of any newly discovered
material. Such an order cannot be sustained.
17. In these circumstances, permitting the proceedings
to continue against the present Applicants would amount to
an abuse of the process of the court. The case, as presented,
does not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged
against the Applicants, even if the entire material is accepted
at its face value.
ORDER
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under
Section 528 BNSS is allowed.
The judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 passed
by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10966
Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 209 of 2024, titled as
"Parvej & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarkhand and Anr." and the
summoning order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-First, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.
2545 of 2022, insofar as they relate to the present
Applicants, are hereby set aside.
The criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.
2545 of 2022, titled as "Talib Husain vs. Usman and Others",
stands quashed against the present Applicants alone.
Proceedings shall continue against the remaining
accused strictly in accordance with law.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
10.12.2025
Akash
AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef7
3518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c
891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7,
cn=AKASH
Date: 2025.12.11 10:30:13 +05'30'
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1011 of 2024 --- Parvej Aalam & Anr. v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
