2025:UHC:8119 1 Judgment Reserved on : 19.8.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 11.9.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 582 of 2024 (Under Section 528 of BNSS) Deepak Gupta & Others … Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another … Respondents Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, AGA, for the State. Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent no. 2. J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the accused applicants under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 04.11.2022, the summoning order dated 26.04.2023, as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 206 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, Dehradun, qua the applicants. 2. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 28.11.2021. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Applicant no. 1 is stated to have refused to consummate the marriage and often 2025:UHC:8119 2 returned home in an intoxicated condition, whereupon he would abuse and harass the complainant with persistent demands for dowry. It is further alleged that the complainant was subjected to unnatural sexual acts by applicant no. 1. The FIR also states that co-accused Praveen Goyal attempted to outrage her modesty by making sexual advances towards her, and when she disclosed this incident to her husband and in-laws, instead of protecting her, they joined in harassing, abusing and physically assaulting her. It is further alleged that on 25.11.2021, applicant no. 1, in an intoxicated state, brutally assaulted the complainant and demanded a sum of ₹40,00,000/- for purchasing a luxury car. Upon her refusal, all the accused persons allegedly assaulted her, causing injuries as a result of which she fell unconscious. 3. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the applicants and co-accused Praveen Goyal. Learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the material collected, passed the summoning order dated 26.04.2023, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the applicants is that the allegations are false, exaggerated and motivated, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. It has been urged that the dispute 2025:UHC:8119 3 is of a purely matrimonial nature and the applicants have been falsely implicated. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR discloses grave allegations of harassment, cruelty, unnatural sexual acts, attempt of sexual assault by a co-accused, and specific instances of dowry demand coupled with physical assault. It has been argued that at this stage, sufficiency of evidence is not to be weighed meticulously and once the allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the High Court ought not to stifle the prosecution at the threshold and the matter is required to be tested in trial by the court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no substance in the submissions of the applicants. The law is well-settled that while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court is not to conduct a mini-trial or assess the reliability of allegations or evidence. If the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet prima facie constitute the offence alleged, proceedings ought not to be quashed. 7. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters where exercise of inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is permissible. A bare reading of the FIR and charge- 2025:UHC:8119 4 sheet in the present case discloses specific allegations of cruelty, harassment for dowry, demand of huge dowry amount of ₹40,00,000/- for purchase of a luxury car and physical assault causing injuries. Such allegations, if proved, squarely attract the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The veracity or otherwise of these allegations is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. 8. This Court is thus of the considered view that the impugned charge-sheet, the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings initiated against the applicants suffer from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 9. This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that no observation in this order shall affect the merits of the case before the trial court, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Pr