Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3581 (UTT)

Israil v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C482/1216/2016 · 2025-06-16

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 1216 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Devendra Dashoni, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. Challenge in this petition is made to the charge sheet dated 19.03.2016, cognizance/summoning order dated 15.07.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2729 of 2016, State Vs. Shahzad and Others, under Sections 498(A), 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 5. This Court passed an interim order on 22.09.2016, whereby, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2729 of 2016 were stayed. During pendency of the present criminal miscellaneous application, State has filed objection, wherein, it has come that respondent no. 2 i.e. Smt. Tabassum and Shahjad (son of applicants) have entered into a settlement and Shahjad has given divorce to respondent no. 2 and after giving divorce, respondent no. 2 has married to one Sri Wasim Haider and accordingly a child has also been born out from the said wedlock. Shahjad has also married one Sana and a son is born out of the said wedlock. Perusal of the objection filed by the State further reveals that there was no case of demand of dowry or harassment. 6. Since, the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 has already settled her dispute with her husband, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served, if the proceedings of the case are allowed to continue. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application deserves to be allowed. 7. The present miscellaneous application is allowed. The charge sheet dated 19.03.2016, cognizance/summoning order dated 15.07.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2729 of 2016, State Vs. Shahzad and Others, under Sections 498(A), 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun is hereby quashed qua the applicants. (Alok Mahra J.) 16.06.2025 Ujjwal