C482/779/2010 of DEVESH KUMAR PUN AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 779 of 2010(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Devesh Kumar Pun and two others .….…… Applicants

versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

..……. Respondents

Mr. R.S.Sammal, Advocate, present for the applicants.

Mr. S.A.Siddiqui, learned AGA, assisted by Ms. Meena Vohara, Brief Holder, present for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D. Pant, present for the respondent no. 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.The applicants Devesh Kumar Pun, Smt. Summi Pun and Dhan Prasad Pun, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seek to quash the cognizance order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in Criminal Case No. 1244 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the said Court. Dhan Prasad Pun, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seek to quash the cognizance order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in Criminal Case No. 1244 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the said Court.

2.The informant (respondent no. 2 herein) lodged first information report against eight accused persons including the applicants on 20.02.2010, at PS Haldwani, District Nainital, which was registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against three accused persons information report against eight accused persons including the applicants on 20.02.2010, at PS Haldwani, District Nainital, which was registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against three accused persons

i.e., the present applicants for the selfsame offences. Applicant no. 1 was the husband, applicant no. 2 was mother-in-law and applicant no. 3 was father-in-law of the respondent no. 2. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the said offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants.

3.Learned counsel for the applicants, at the very outset, made statement that the applicants are not keen to pursue their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1 (husband of respondent no. 2) has already been directed to be enlarged on bail. An innocuous prayer is made (by learned counsel) that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) be directed to be enlarged on bail on the same day, considering the role assigned to them in the first information report and their old age. The allegations levelled against father-in-law and mother-in-law are general and sweeping in nature. statement that the applicants are not keen to pursue their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1 (husband of respondent no. 2) has already been directed to be enlarged on bail. An innocuous prayer is made (by learned counsel) that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) be directed to be enlarged on bail on the same day, considering the role assigned to them in the first information report and their old age. The allegations levelled against father-in-law and mother-in-law are general and sweeping in nature.4. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, in support of his contention, wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that: Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, in support of his contention, wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“To find out the truth is Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The

courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases”.

Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that the allegations of such complaints are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

5.Considering the facts of the case and attenuating circumstances, this Court is of the view that the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants is worth accepting and should, therefore, be accepted. circumstances, this Court is of the view that the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants is worth accepting and should, therefore, be accepted.

6.Since learned counsel for the applicants did not press the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the same is dismissed. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the same is dismissed.

7.It is provided that if the applicants no. 2 and 3 (Smt. Summi Pun and Dhan Prasad Pun) surrender before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and seek bail, their bail application (s) shall be decided by the Court concerned on the same day. Summi Pun and Dhan Prasad Pun) surrender before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and seek bail, their bail application (s) shall be decided by the Court concerned on the same day.

8.Learned counsel for the applicants indicates that the applicants no. 2 and 3 will surrender before the Court concerned on or before 4[th] January, 2014. It is accordingly applicants no. 2 and 3 will surrender before the Court concerned on or before 4[th] January, 2014. It is accordingly provided that no coercive steps shall be taken against them during such period. during such period.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)