[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mukul Goyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 19 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1936
Judgment Reserved on: 03.01.2026
Judgment Delivered on: 19.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.2269 of 2023
Mukul Goyal ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vijay khanduri, learned brief holder, for state of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present application has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of
Special S.C./S.T. Case No. 14 of 2023 pending before the Court of
the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),
Dehradun.
2. The Applicant Mukul Goyal and the private Respondent
Naina Surat Rawat are husband and wife. Their matrimonial
relationship has been strained and multiple proceedings between
the parties are stated to be pending in different jurisdictions.
3. It appears from the record that matrimonial proceedings
between the parties were also initiated in the United Kingdom,
where proceedings relating to dissolution of marriage and financial
remedies were pursued before the Family Court at London.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1936
Documents relating to such proceedings, including orders passed
by the Family Court in England, have been placed on record in the
present petition.
4. The Applicant is presently residing abroad and, during the
pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it was brought to
the notice of the Court that he is residing in the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, by an earlier order passed in the proceedings, liberty
was granted to the Applicant to move an appropriate application
before the Trial Court for participation in the trial through virtual
mode.
5. The criminal proceedings sought to be quashed are
pending before the competent court at Dehradun. It was also
observed in earlier proceedings before this Court that the mere
pendency of the present application under Section 482 CrPC would
not preclude the Trial Court from proceeding with the trial in
accordance with law.
6. During the pendency of the present petition, attempts were
also made to explore the possibility of settlement between the
parties. The parties were directed to appear before the
counsellor/mediator; however, the counselling proceedings could
not be concluded successfully.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the
criminal proceedings initiated against the Applicant are an abuse of
the process of law and arise out of a matrimonial dispute between
the parties.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1936
8. It is argued that the parties have been involved in
matrimonial litigation for several years and proceedings relating to
their marital relationship have also taken place before courts in the
United Kingdom. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings in
India have been initiated with an ulterior motive in the backdrop of
the matrimonial dispute.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant is
presently residing abroad and has been participating in the
proceedings through virtual mode. It is contended that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause undue
harassment to the Applicant.
10. It is further argued that the allegations made against the
Applicant do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged and that the criminal prosecution has been instituted only
to pressurize the Applicant in connection with the matrimonial
dispute between the parties.
11. Learned counsel therefore submits that the present case
falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
and that the proceedings pending before the Trial Court deserve to
be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice.
12. Per contra, learned brief holder appearing for the State
submits that the allegations made in the complaint and the material
collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable
offences.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1936
13. It is contended that the issues raised by the Applicant
involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
14. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the Trial Court is
already seized of the matter and the evidence is required to be
examined during the course of trial. It is therefore argued that the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent
opposes the present application and submits that the allegations
made against the Applicant are serious in nature and have been
supported by material placed on record before the Trial Court.
16. It is further submitted that the defence sought to be raised
by the Applicant relates to factual aspects which can only be
examined during trial.
17. Learned counsel therefore submits that no case is made out
for interference under Section 482 CrPC and the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
19. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled. Such power is to be
exercised sparingly and with great caution to prevent abuse of the
process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is
equally settled that the power cannot be exercised to undertake a
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1936
meticulous examination of the evidence or to determine the
veracity of the allegations made in the complaint.
20. The legal principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC have been authoritatively laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, wherein the Court enumerated illustrative categories
in which the inherent power of the High Court may be exercised
for quashing of criminal proceedings. At the same time, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently cautioned that such power
must be exercised with circumspection and only in rare cases.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 has further reiterated
that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is
not required to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations. If the allegations in the complaint
disclose the commission of an offence, the criminal proceedings
ordinarily ought not to be interdicted.
22. In the present case, the principal contention raised on
behalf of the Applicant is that the criminal proceedings have arisen
in the backdrop of matrimonial disputes between the parties and
that proceedings relating to their marital relationship have also
taken place before courts in the United Kingdom.
23. The existence of matrimonial discord between the parties
or the pendency of proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, by itself,
cannot constitute a ground for quashing of criminal proceedings if
the allegations contained in the complaint disclose the commission
of an offence and require adjudication on the basis of evidence.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1936
24. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant
essentially invite this Court to examine disputed questions of fact
and to evaluate the defence of the Applicant in the light of the
material relied upon by him. Such an exercise would necessarily
involve an appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
25. It is also noteworthy that earlier orders passed in the
present proceedings made it clear that the pendency of the present
petition would not prevent the Trial Court from proceeding with
the trial in accordance with law. The Trial Court has thus been
permitted to continue with the proceedings, and the issues raised
by the Applicant can appropriately be examined during the course
of trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
26. At this stage, this Court cannot record a finding as to the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.
The defence sought to be raised by the Applicant is a matter which
can be tested only during the trial.
27. Having considered the material on record and the
submissions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the opinion
that the present case does not fall within any of the categories laid
down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal warranting exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings.
28. The allegations made in the complaint cannot be said to be
so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could
ever reach a conclusion that an offence has been committed. The
issues raised by the Applicant are essentially matters of defence
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1936
which must be adjudicated by the Trial Court on the basis of
evidence.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC.
ORDER
The present application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is accordingly dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
SB
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2023, Mukul GoyalVsState and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
