2025:UHC:6585 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 25.07.2025 C482/739/2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the applicants through Video conferencing. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht and Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidhya proxy counsel for Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 179 of 2015 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, as well as the summoning order dated 31.01.2015 passed in Case No. 504 of 2011, State Vs. Nafees & Others, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, along with the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Brief facts of the case, as per the record, are that respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants and two others alleging that her marriage with applicant Nafees was solemnized on 17.06.2006 according to Muslim rituals, and a girl child was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that soon after marriage, she was subjected to physical assault and harassment for dowry, and was eventually ousted from her matrimonial home. She has been residing at her parental house since then. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2007 at about 11:00 P.M., her husband Nafees, along with others, unlawfully entered her parental home with an intent to kill her, attempted to abduct the minor daughter, and tried to throttle her. Upon hearing noise, her mother and neighbors intervened, and the accused persons fled from the spot. Based on the said F.I.R., the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicants, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and passed the impugned summoning order dated 31.01.2015. 2025:UHC:6585 Hence, this application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the matter arises out of matrimonial discord and that the applicants are relatives of respondent no.2 who have been falsely implicated. It is argued that the charge sheet was filed only against Nafees and his mother Smt. Kamarjahan, and not the other applicants. Nevertheless, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against all accused persons without judicial application of mind. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that respondent no.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home, and there are contradictions between the contents of the F.I.R. and the testimony of PW-2. It is also contended that some applicants reside outside the village and were not involved in the alleged incident. Importantly, Nafees and Smt. Kamarjahan, who are husband and mother-in-law of respondent no.2, have already been acquitted by the learned trial court from the charges under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by order dated 23.11.2023. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the application and would submit that serious allegations of assault have been made. However, he admits that the trial court has acquitted the main accused, i.e., Nafees and Smt. Kamarjahan, from the charges under Sections 498- A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 also supports the summoning order but does not dispute the acquittal of the main accused. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. A perusal of the judgment dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar reveals that both Nafees and Smt. Kamarjahan have been acquitted on the basis of a detailed and reasoned order after due consideration of the evidence on record, including the statements of witnesses and respondent no.2. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that in matrimonial disputes where specific allegations are levelled only 2025:UHC:6585 against the husband and mother-in-law, and the main accused are subsequently acquitted, continuation of criminal proceedings against the remaining co- accused serves no useful purpose. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, held that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they amount to abuse of the process of law or are based on vague or omnibus allegations. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that criminal proceedings against in-laws without specific allegations amount to misuse of the legal process. 14. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint are vague and do not disclose specific acts of cruelty or demand of dowry against the present applicants. It appears to be a case of over- implication wherein the entire family of the husband has been unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings without substantive material. 15. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 17. The order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 179 of 2015, and the summoning order dated 31.01.2015 passed in Case No. 504 of 2011, State Vs. Nafees & Others, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed. 18. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 25.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6585