2025:UHC:5476 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 25.06.2025 C-482 No. 800 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 05.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2013, as well as the summoning order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 742 of 2011, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 742 of 2011 against the applicant and his family members alleging commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 328 IPC. It was alleged that on 04.04.2010, the applicant along with his parents, sister, and brother came to her residence, demanded dowry, physically harassed her, and forcibly administered an intoxicating substance to her, causing her to lose consciousness. Respondent no.2/complainant was allegedly hospitalized and discharged on 07.04.2010. 6. Learned trial court After recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses dismissed the said complaint case vide order dated 03.10.2012. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was allowed on 05.07.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court, in which, the applicant thereafter summoned under Section 328 IPC by the trial court vide its order dated 10.05.2016. Hence, this application. 2025:UHC:5476 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no valid marriage ever took place between the applicant and repsondent no.2. In 2011, respondent no.2 filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 3 of 2011 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the court on 08.11.2012. She also filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which too was dismissed on 23.08.2012 on the ground that she failed to prove her marriage with the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and on the basis of false and concocted story made by respondent no.2, the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 328 I.P.C. 9. He would also point out that on 08.04.2010, respondent no.2 lodged a complaint with the concerned police station alleging that her mobile phone, ATM card, night suit, diary, a red-coloured suit, some photographs, and negatives had gone missing. Subsequently, in her complaint dated 21.09.2011, she reiterated the same allegations and added that the applicant had taken the said articles, as alleged in the earlier FIR dated 08.04.2010. Even if the incident is presumed to have occurred on 08.04.2010, the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of more than one and a half years. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that on 15.12.2012, respondent no.2 filed another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the applicant before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, which is still pending consideration. The applicant asserts that no marriage was ever solemnized between him and respondent no.2, which stands substantiated by the dismissal of the application filed by respondent no.2 in the family court. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the impugned orders but did not dispute the fact that the earlier complaint made on 08.04.2010 merely concerned missing items, and the allegation under Section 328 IPC was introduced much later. 2025:UHC:5476 12. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire criminal proceedings are unsustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be quashed. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case for exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, summoning the applicant under Section 328 IPC in Criminal Complaint Case No. 742 of 2011 is quashed qua the applicant. 14. Accordingly, the C-482 application stands allowed. 15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 25.06.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5476