C482/337/2012 of MANPREET KAUR and OTHERS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and ANOTHER

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2017-06-20
Bench: AMIT KAPOOR VS RAMESH CHANDER, ANOTHER VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, C B I, INDER MOHAN GOSAMI
Case number: 3084 of 2011

Parties

Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 21.01.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case no. 3084 of 2011, Taranjeet Singh (PETITIONER)
Manpreet Kaur and others, under Sections 323,504,452 and 506 of IPC, pending before learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1 resolved of 5 detected)

AMIT KAPOOR versus RAMESH CHANDER & ANR. (2012)

Statutes cited (4)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

C-482 Petition No. 337 of 2012

U.C.Dhyani, J.

Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate, present for

applicants.

Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder, present

for the State/respondent no.1.

None is present for the respondent no. 2,

despite service of notice.

By means of present application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 21.01.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case no. 3084 of 2011, Taranjeet Singh vs. Manpreet Kaur and others, under Sections 323,504,452 and 506 of IPC, pending before learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun.

Learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that petitioners are residents of Tarantaran, Punjab. Petitioner no.1 is wife of the respondent no.2, and petitioner no. 2 & 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent no.2. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that father of petitioner no. filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in Tarantaran, as counterblast her husband (respondent no.2) has filed impugned criminal complaint at Dehradun to pressurize the petitioners in the case pending at Tarantaran. It is argued that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent no.2 (husband).

Since the respondent has not turned up

before this Court despite service of notice upon him, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicant.

There seems to be substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that if criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against present applicants, the same will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

It will be futile exercise to keep petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. pending before this Court.

The Court can intervene in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, 2013 (1) SCC (Crl) 986 and Inder Mohan Gosami and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC (Crl) 259.

The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

is allowed. As consequence thereof, the summoning order dated 21.01.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case no. 3084 of 2011, Taranjeet Singh vs. Manpreet Kaur and others, under Sections 323,504,452 and 506 of IPC, pending before learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, are hereby quashed.

Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of private respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.

(U.C.Dhyani, J.)

20.06.2017

Kaushal