No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 990 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prahalad Singh Kathait, applicant no.1-in-person. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash/set-aside the chargesheet dated 18.07.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 16.04.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2726 of 2023 (Case Crime No. 27 of 2023), State Vs. Gaurav Kathait and Others, under Sections 498-A and 504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/5th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun. 5. In this case, Applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent no. 2 respectively. An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicants as well as her husband, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 377 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein, she has alleged that she alongwith her family members was harassed for demand of dowry before and after her marriage. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicants and their son and another co-accused under Sections 498-A and 504 of IPC. 6. Applicant no. 1 has argued is case in person. He is retired from the post of Warrant Officer in Indian Air Force, while applicant no. 2 is a housewife. 7. Applicant no. 1 has submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer had put specific question to the complainant as to what evidence she has to prove the factum of demand of dowry to which the complainant had no evidence. As per the contents of the FIR and even as per the statements given before the Investigating Officer, the sections under which the applicants are chargesheeted, are not attracted. It is further submitted that after the marriage, the complainant have lived in her matrimonial home only for a short period of three-four days and no incident has ever happened with the complainant, as has been alleged by her in her complaint. This fact is also corroborated from the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. As regards the alleged payment of Rs. 21 Lakhs for purchasing a plot before the marriage, respondent no. 2/complainant has admitted that the entire amount was paid in her account by cousin of her husband. Besides this, Mr. Prahalad Singh Kathait, applicant no.1 has argued that if they had any intention of harassing the complainant, then the plot would not have been registered in the name of respondent no. 2 alongwith his wife. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. This Court thinks that prima facie, the complainant has not been able to establish the allegations levelled against the present applicants and considering the fact that applicant no. 1 is a retired person, who has served the Indian Air Force and at the twilight of his life, he should not be harassed to face the trial in absence of any prima facie case made against the applicants. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2726 of 2023 (Case Crime No. 27 of 2023), State Vs. Gaurav Kathait and Others, under Sections 498-A and 504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/5th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, is hereby quashed, qua the applicants. 12. It is hereby made clear that husband has filed a separate criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the above chargesheet and the finding recorded in this case would not have any direct effect in that case and it should have its own merit. (Alok Mahra J.) 24.04.2026 Ujjwal