2025:UHC:10726 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 2041 of 2025 02nd December, 2025 Shivam Dhiman and Ors ……..Applicants Versus Doli Dhiman alias Anamika ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate for the applicants, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This C528 application has been filed by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Complaint Case No.2165 of 2022, Doli Dhiman alias Anamika vs. Shivam Dhiman and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 01.07.2021. After some time, she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment and physical abuse by applicant no.1 and his family members alleging that despite her family spending ₹12,00,000/- on the marriage, the applicants continuously taunted her for dowry, demanded an additional ₹5,00,000/- in cash, withheld her Stridhan, and subjected her to physical assault. She further claimed that her husband was unemployed and had been previously married, contrary to his earlier representations that he was employed as an HR executive. Respondent no.2 alleged that on 11.02.2022 she was severely beaten, and the next day 1 2025:UHC:10726 the in-laws falsely accused her of assault to have her removed from the house by the police. On 27.02.2022, the in-laws allegedly attempted to coerce her into signing mutual divorce papers at her parental home and, upon her refusal, assaulted and threatened her. Her initial attempts to lodge a police complaint were allegedly dismissed as a “family matter.” Subsequently, she filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, who took cognizance and summoned the applicants. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 18.11.2022, the applicants have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order dated 18.11.2022 is legally unsustainable, having been passed mechanically and without proper judicial appreciation of the material on record. It is argued that the allegations are vague, exaggerated, and uncorroborated; that the complaint is an afterthought aimed at falsely implicating the entire family; that no prima facie case was found by the police; and that the Magistrate failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, prayed that the summoning order be quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality or procedural irregularity in the summoning order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Complaint Case No. 2165 of 2022. The learned Magistrate after going through the complaint, statements of complainant recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statement of C.W.1 and C.W.2 recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. found a prima facie case against the applicants 2 2025:UHC:10726 and passed the impugned summoning order. There is sufficient compliance of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. No inquiry as alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant was required. That argument is also rejected. The reasons recorded by the court below are cogent and do not warrant interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the present C528 application stands dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.12.2025 SK 3