2025:UHC:1807 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 427 of 2023 17 March, 2025 Sushma Arya --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared through video conferencing. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.285 of 2022, Ram Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Sushma Arya and Another, whereby, the said revision of the revisionists (private respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein) was allowed and the summoning order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, was set aside. 3. The facts in nutshell are that the marriage of applicant was solemnized on 11.10.2016 with one Sohan Singh. Her husband and the relatives of her husband had asked her to leave the matrimonial house on 09.07.2017 for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The husband of applicant started manhandling her in a drunken state and abusing her and respondent Nos.2 to 5 used to provoke her husband. The applicant was 2025:UHC:1807 2 brutally beaten and harassed by her husband on 02.08.2017 and on 10.08.2017, finally kicked her out from her matrimonial house with the demand of Marutr Ciaz Car and her husband also threatened her for life, if she told anybody about the occurrences. She submitted an application dated 06.12.2018 at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar, but, no action was taken by the police in the matter. She submitted another application dated 12.12.2018 to the S.S.P. Haridwar and again no action was taken by the authority. 4. Thereafter, the applicant has filed a complaint case No.133 of 2019 Sushma Arya Vs. Sohan Singh and Others, on 14.02.2019, in the Court of learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. After going through the complaint and the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate took cognizance on 19.03.2021 against the husband of the applicant and respondent Nos.2 to 5 and summoned them u/s 147, 148, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, to face the trial. 5. Against the summoning/cognizance order dated 19.03.2021, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed a criminal revision, being Criminal Revision No.285 of 2022, Ram Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Sushma Arya and Another, whereby, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide order dated 21.11.2022 allowed the said revision and set aside the summoning order dated 19.03.2021 qua the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, the applicant is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate had rightly appreciated the evidences and passed the order dated 19.03.2021 after 2025:UHC:1807 3 application of judicial mind and the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar has wrongly appreciated the facts and evidences and passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, which is illegal, perverse and against the settled principle of law. He further submitted that the Court below did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down with regard to that, if prima-facie a cognizable offence is made out against any person, there is no illegality in summoning the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the complaint and impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2022, it is culled out that the reasoning on which learned Revisional Court has allowed the revision filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, are as follows: i. Complainant (applicant herein) described the incidents of 09.07.2017, 02.08.2017 and 10.08.2017 in her complaint and has shown that her husband Sohan Singh was also present at the time of incident, but, her husband was missing since July 2017 and a missing report to that effect was filed at Police Station Laksar. In such a situation, both the incidents mentioned by the complainant become false. The complainant has thoughtfully filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws belatedly and no explanation was given by the applicantcomplainant for the delay. ii. The complainant stated in her complaint that her husband and respondent Nos.2 to 5 had collectively beaten her for dowry. But no medical record to the said effect is available on record. iii. On perusing the statement of CW-2 Pankaj Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who is the witness of the incidence, it is clear that in his evidence the said witness had mainly stated that the act of the complainant’s husband, but, he did not take the name of the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2025:UHC:1807 4 8. On the basis of the aforesaid reasons, learned Revisional Court allowed the said Criminal Revision No.285 of 2022, Ram Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Sushma Arya and Another and set aside the summoning order dated 19.03.2021 qua the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 9. I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar was right in holding that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were wrongly summoned and accordingly set aside the summoning order dated 19.03.2021 qua the revisionists/respondent Nos.2 to 5. It is a well-reasoned judgment, and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 10. In view of the above, the present C482 application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.03.2025 PN