Abhishek Sharma And Ors. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the present C482 application, applicants have sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.147 of 2014, State Vs. Abhishek Sharma and Ors., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The present C482 application was filed on 08.05.2023 and since then, even notice has not been issued to respondent No.2.

The First Information Report was lodged by the respondent No.2 in Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun alleging maarpeet and harassment towards the demand of dowry against the applicants including brother in-law (Jeth Vivek Sharma). After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the police on 04.02.2014 under the aforesaid Sections. Vide order dated 10.06.2014, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun and the applicants/accused persons including Vivek Sharma were summoned.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report has been lodged by the respondent No.2 in counterblast of the Divorce Suit, which was filed by Abhishek Sharma-applicant No.1 (husband of respondent No.2) on 17.03.2012 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mau, District Mau, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No.2 appeared in the Divorce Suit on 17.10.2013 and the first information report has been lodged on 25.10.2013 after knowing the filing of the said suit in counterblast.

From the perusal of the record, the arguments made by learned counsel for the applicants do not hold any water for the reason that respondent No.2 Laxmi Sharma has already made a complaint about the mistreatment at the hands of the applicants to the Women Cell Rishikesh, District Dehradun on 02.06.2012 stating therein about committing maarpeet by the applicants and thrown out her from the house on 20.01.2012 at about 10:30 PM. The said complaint dated 02.06.2012 is made part of the record by the applicants as Annexure No.4 to the present C482 application. Subsequently, the first information report was lodged by respondent No.2 on 25.10.2013. Thus, theory of counterblast is far-fetched.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the FIR and other documents available on record, since, the first information report was lodged and investigated and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court doesn’t want to interfere in the matter on such a flimsy ground. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed.

However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that despite anticipatory bail having been granted to the applicants, non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants. Therefore, a liberty is given to the applicants to appear before the learned trial court on or before 15.05.2025. Till then, the non-bailable warrants issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance. On their appearance, learned Magistrate shall proceed against the applicants in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.