High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 02 UK CK 0053

Smt Sakuntla Devi (Mother in law), Naresh Kumar (Father in law), Sri Hari Om (Brother of father in law) and Sunil Kumar (Husband) vs The State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 February 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-482) No. 24 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 225 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

2.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of, State v. Sunil Kumar and Ors. Criminal Complaint Case No. 1682 of 2010relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3.

Perusal of the First Information Report discloses that there are serious allegations against the Petitioners made by the complainant on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners are innocent. It is settled principle of law that this Court can not examine the factual disputes in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., on the basis of half baked evidence. It is for the trial to see after recording evidence whether the allegations made against the Petitioners are true or false.

4.

For the reasons as discussed above this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case with the observation that if the Petitioners namely Smt Sakuntla Devi, Naresh Kumar and Hari Om surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Urgency Application No. 117 of 2011 also stands disposed of).