Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 528 Of Bnss) vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 10 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8022
Judgment Reserved on ; 27.8.2025
Judgment Delivered on : 10.9.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1050 of 2024
(Under Section 528 of BNSS)
Vimal Kishore Sharma & Another ... Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Vimal Kishore Sharma, applicant no. 1-in-person.
Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy AG, with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, AGA, for the
State.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent
no. 2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Heard the applicant no. 1, learned
State Counsel and learned Counsel appearing for
the complainant/respondent no. 2 and perused
the materials on record.
2. The factual matrix, as emerging from
the First Information Report lodged by the
wife/second respondent on 30.1.2022, is that her
marriage with applicant no. 1 was solemnized on
07.12.2020. It has been alleged therein that prior
to the marriage, applicant no. 2 persistently
raised demands for dowry and subjected the
complainant's father to harassment in that
regard. Subsequent to the marriage, both the
applicants, namely the husband (applicant no. 1)
and the father-in-law (applicant no. 2), allegedly
continued to make unlawful demands of dowry
and subjected the complainant as well as her
father to harassment on that count. It is further
2025:UHC:8022
alleged in the FIR that, in furtherance of demand
for dowry, applicant no. 1 attempted to blackmail
the complainant by threatening that he would
malign her reputation by imputing allegations of
unchastity and being addicted to alcohol. It is
alleged that the applicant no. 1 threatened the
complainant by stating that he would disfigure
her face and also tried to strangulate her. It is
further alleged in the FIR that on 17.02.2021,
when the complainant expressed her desire to
travel from Delhi to her parental home at
Dehradun for the purpose of attending the
marriage of a family friend, namely Manoj,
applicant no. 1 picked up a quarrel with her,
accusing her of intending to meet her alleged
paramour. It is further alleged that in the course
of the said incident, applicant no. 1 subjected the
complainant to physical assault and thereafter
forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial home.
The FIR further discloses that on 15.03.2021,
when applicant no. 1 came to Dehradun to take
the complainant back to Delhi, he misbehaved at
the dinner gathering and physically assaulted
Manoj, alleging that the complainant was
maintaining an illicit relationship with him. It is
further alleged in the FIR that on 29.03.2021,
applicant no. 1 returned to Delhi after telling the
complainant that she should remain at her
parental home and there was no place or
requirement for her to reside with him. It is
alleged that on the same occasion, applicant no.
1 demanded a sum of ₹50,00,000/- from the
complainant, directing her to persuade her
parents to arrange the said amount, and
2025:UHC:8022
threatened that in the event of non-fulfilment of
such demand, he would malign her character by
branding her as an unchaste woman, addicted to
alcohol, and a participant in rave parties. It is
further alleged that on 28.07.2021, when the
complainant went to her matrimonial home at
Delhi to get back her belongings, the accused-
applicants abused her as well as her relatives,
namely Aman and Satish. The complainant has
also alleged that her husband and father-in-law
have been sending WhatsApp messages
containing false imputations of unchastity and
alcoholism against her with the intent to defame
and pressurize her family members into yielding
to their unlawful demand of ₹50,00,000/-.
3. Pursuant to the lodging of the FIR, the
matter was duly investigated by the police, and
upon completion of the investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be submitted against the accused-
applicants. On the basis thereof, the learned trial
court, being satisfied that a prima facie case was
made out, proceeded to summon the accused-
applicants to face trial for the offences alleged.
Thus feeling aggrieved, accused applicants have
filed this criminal miscellaneous application under
Section 528 of BNSS seeking the following reliefs:
"1. Quash the Case number 7244/2022
(Annex-A4 (order sheet) titled as State of
Uttarakhand vs Janardhan Sharma & other of District
Court, Dehradun, Uttarakhand registered on date
09.11.2022 and also quash the FIR (Annex-A2)
number 0063/2022 of Raipur Police Station
registered on dated 30/01/2022.
2. Pass such an order that the
Respondents should not be allowed to file a fresh FIR
related to the same incident mentioned in this
application (Respondent no. 2's FIR complaint)."
2025:UHC:8022
4. Applicants contend that the matrimonial
discord has been exaggerated; that the
allegations are false and frivolous; that there is
no medical evidence to support the allegation of
assault; and that continuance of proceedings
would be an abuse of process.
5. Learned State Counsel and learned
Counsel for the complainant opposed the petition.
It is submitted that the FIR narrates specific
dates, locations and roles attributed to each
accused and that the issues raised are matters
for trial.
6. In the present case, FIR is not a bald
narrative. It sets out specific dates and locations
of multiple incidents, assigns distinct roles to
each accused applicant and alleges conduct
bringing the matter within the definition of
"cruelty" under Section 498-A IPC, besides
offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
This Court is of the opinion that the allegations
made in the FIR, if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make
out a case against the accused applicants. At this
stage, this Court cannot test veracity of
allegations, weigh contradictions, or appreciate
sufficiency of evidence -- those are matters for
trial.
7. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, Hon'ble Supreme Court
catalogued illustrative categories where quashing
may be justified, emphasizing that power is to be
2025:UHC:8022
exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare
cases. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315,
Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that at the
stage of seeking quashment, the Court is not to
conduct a mini-trial or assess reliability of
allegations; if the FIR/complaint discloses
cognizable offence, investigation/trial should
ordinarily proceed.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is
that this is not a fit case for exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The C528
petition fails and is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
9. It is clarified that no opinion on merits
is expressed; all observations are prima facie for
deciding this petition and shall not influence the
trial. However, before parting with the case, it is
necessary to take note of the conduct of
accused-applicant Vimal Kishore Sharma, as
specifically recorded by the learned Trial Judge in
his order dated 25.03.2025. The record reflects
that the accused, who has chosen to pursue his
case in person and is himself conducting the
cross-examination of witnesses, has not been
maintaining the decorum expected in a court of
law. His behaviour during the course of trial has
been found to be improper, unbecoming and
obstructive to the fair administration of justice.
This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact
that every litigant, while exercising his right of
defence, is bound to adhere to the discipline and
2025:UHC:8022
dignity of judicial proceedings. The accused, by
indulging in such disorderly conduct, has not only
demeaned the solemnity of the proceedings but
has also sought to intimidate and browbeat
witnesses and the court alike. Such conduct
deserves to be strongly deprecated. The trial
court is well within its jurisdiction to take
appropriate measures to ensure that the
proceedings are conducted in an orderly manner
and to prevent any attempt by the accused to
abuse the process of law. The right of an accused
to defend himself cannot be stretched to the
extent of permitting disruption of trial or lowering
the authority of the court. The accused is,
therefore, cautioned to conduct himself in a
manner befitting the dignity of judicial
proceedings.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Pr
PRABODH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3a
KUMAR
eab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052
DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.09.10 14:32:36 +05'30'
