SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No.107 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicants. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. Shweta B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. 3. By means of the present C528 application, the applicants have put to challenge the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1247 of 2023, Savita Rani @ Sheetal Vs. Abhinav Verma & another, under Sections 195-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC against applicant no.1 and Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC against applicant no.2 pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 08.06.2019. After passage of time acrimony grew between applicants and respondent no.2. On 18.06.2022 respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the applicants with the allegation of dowry, harassment and cruelty. The said application filed under Section 156(3) was treated as a complaint case and thereafter the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur summoned the applicants vide order dated 03.01.2023 to face trial under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter the applicants challenged the said summoning order by filing a Criminal Revision No.28 of 2023, Abhinav Verma and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2023 by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the prosecution launched by respondent no.2 is counter blast to the 2 FIR lodged by applicant’s counsel. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR was lodged by the applicant side on 30.05.2023 while complaint was lodged by respondent no.2 on 15.07.2023. 7. From this angle, it cannot be concluded that the complaint case was lodged as a counter blast to FIR lodged by the applicants. 8. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 9. Accordingly, C528 application is dismissed in limine. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.02.2025 SK