Vivek vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant for quashing chargesheet dated 31.12.2013 and cognizance order dated 27.01.2014 and 01.02.2014 as well as non-bailable warrants dated 16.05.2015 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 04 of 2014, under Sections 506 & 420 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that applicant is settled in California (USA) and he had come to India for the marriage of his younger brother Mr. Ramnik, in November, 2013. Learned counsel for the applicant has made counter allegation against the victim that she and her father wanted to grab the Flat, belonging to Mr. Ramnik and present applicant in Mumbai, in which applicant had made contribution to the extent of 65% and the remaining 35% contribution towards price was made by Mr. Ramnik. He further submits that the complainant and his daughter (victim) had imposed a condition that marriage would be solemnized only after transfer of said Flat in the name of victim; since the applicant and his family members did not accede to the said condition imposed by the complainant and his daughter, therefore, marriage could not be solemnized and false allegations, regarding demand of dowry, were made against the applicant and his family members.

Per contra, Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that applicant is the main accused, as it was the applicant who had asked the complainant to come to Rishikesh. He further submits that when the complainant met the applicant in the morning of 08.12.2013 at Rishikesh, then the applicant along with his parents demanded a sum of Rs.10.00 lakh and also a 'Fortuner' Car in dowry. In support of his contention, he has referred to the contents of FIR, where specific allegations have been made against the applicant. He further submits that the defence taken by the applicant that he had come only for the marriage of his younger brother and no specific allegation was made against him in the FIR is incorrect. He further submits that applicant's innocence or otherwise can be decided during the course of trial based on evidence.

Mr. Saurabh Pande, learned Brief Holder, on the other hand, submits that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot enter into the questions of fact and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. He further submits that scope of Section 482 is limited and at this stage this Court has to see only as to whether prima facie case is made out justifying the summoning of the accused or not.

Learned counsel for the applicant thereafter submits that since the victim is settled in life, after her marriage, therefore, there is every likelihood that the trial may not reach to its logical conclusion, as the victim would not be available for recording her statement before the trial court.

Mr. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that complainant as well as the victim are diligently pursuing the matter and the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the applicant is without any substance.

I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned summoning order passed by learned trial court. It is settled position in law that the Court would interfere with a summoning order or proceedings of a criminal case only in rarest of cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicant. It is also settled position of law that this Court, while hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not sitting as a trial court & this Court cannot take into consideration the plausible defence of the accused during the course of hearing. I am of the view that the factual aspect of this case needs evidence to be adduced by the parties before the court concerned and the trial court after considering the evidence on record will decide the matter in accordance with law. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the applicant at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. Therefore, in view of the above facts as well as the submission raised by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is also going to be caused to the applicant in the case. The contentions, which the learned counsel for the applicant has raised before me, can be raised during trial and evidence may also be led on those aspects.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is dismissed. Interim order dated 13.08.2015 stands vacated.