2025:UHC:4080 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 94 of 2025 16 May, 2025 Sheetal & Anr. -- Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy A.G. for the State ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral) Present petition under Section 528 of The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, B.N.S.S.) is filed by the petitioners for quashing of charge-sheet no.1/2024 dated 08.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.08.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no.6265 of 2024 “State vs. Sahil @ Manoj & Ors.” for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 506 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and parents of petitioner no.2 with the allegations that she is an old lady having no children and her husband died on 23.07.2021; 1 2025:UHC:4080 that, petitioner no.2/accused is son of respondent no.2/complainant’s sister; that, after death of her husband, respondent no.2/complainant is the sole owner of her husband’s property; that, the petitioners and co- accused persons in order to take possession of respondent no.2/complainant’s husband property entered into a criminal conspiracy; that, on 22.10.2021 at 5:00 pm all the accused persons locked her inside the house and kept a muscle man as security guard; that, a fake succession certificate was prepared by the petitioner no.2/accused calling himself to be the son of the respondent no.2/complainant and her husband and on the basis of said fake succession certificate, a car, a motor-cycle and a scooter of complainant’s husband were taken by the petitioners; that, the petitioners also transferred the eco-sports car of her husband in their name by using forged signatures documents; that, they restrained her by confining her in her house; that, the petitioner no.2 is not the adopted son of respondent no.2/complainant and her husband nor any adoption deed was executed nor any Will was executed by the respondent no.2/complainant or her husband in his favour; that, petitioner no.2 and other accused persons failed in their conspiracy during the lifetime of complainant’s husband and after his death, lakhs of rupees were fraudulently withdrawn from the bank accounts of complainant’s husband and his vehicle was registered in their name and the respondent no.2/complainant was beaten up. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would 2 2025:UHC:4080 submit that petitioner no.2 is adopted son of respondent no.2/complainant and her husband (since deceased) and after the death of her husband respondent no.2/complainant under the influence of her brother is trying to oust the petitioners from their legal rights; that, this dispute had also gone to the State Women Commission, where the respondent no.2/complainant admitted that petitioner no.2 was adopted by her and her husband from complainant’s elder sister at the age of four years. He would further submit that the present matter is purely a family dispute which has been given a criminal colour. He would further submit that the allegations made in the FIR are false and frivolous and the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of same are liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the petition, submitting that the petition is misconceived, and the allegations including those relating to confinement, assault, forgery and fraudulent transfers, are serious in nature and require adjudication during trial. He further submits that the adoption claim appears suspicious in view of the age gap between the complainant and petitioner no.2, and the alleged oral admission before the Women Commission is of limited probative value at this stage. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material. 6. At the stage of considering a petition for 3 2025:UHC:4080 quashing under Section 528 B.N.S.S., the guiding principle is well-settled. The High Court must exercise such jurisdiction sparingly and only when it is evident that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide intent or are otherwise an abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint/FIR prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. Serious allegations have been made regarding conspiracy, wrongful confinement, assault, and forgery. Whether petitioner no.2 is the legally adopted son of respondent no.2/complainant is a matter which cannot be determined conclusively in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. and will require evidence during trial. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present case is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings at this stage. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 16.05.2025 Rajni 4 RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484 48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17 d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4 DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53061 6A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.05.21 13:52:10 -07'00'