2025:UHC:3599 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 529 of 2023 07 May, 2025 Hardev Singh & others --Applicants Versus Rajni Singh --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the summoning order dated 05.02.2023 along with entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.107 of 2022, Rajni Singh vs. Hardev Singh & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola, Uttarkashi with the allegations that respondent got married with applicant no.1 on 01.07.2022 and when on 07.07.2022, respondent went to her matrimonial house, the accused persons assaulted her and ousted her from matrimonial house. In the complaint, she has stated that in the year 2011, respondent was appointed as staff nurse in CHC Purola and in the year 2014-15, she was appointed as Block Coordinator in CHC Purola. The 1 2025:UHC:3599 applicant no.1 and respondent used to work in the same place/hospital. In the year 2015, applicant no.1 proposed her for marriage. However, respondent told the applicant no.1 that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category, therefore, she could not marry him and his family members will also not accept her as daughter-in- law. But applicant no.1 requested her for marriage and said that he is in love with her. In the complaint, it is further stated that on the pretext of marriage, applicant made physical relations with the respondent against her consent and started living together. When respondent asked him for marriage, applicant no.1 made excuses and when she moved a complaint before SDM on 05.04.2022, applicant no.1 agreed for marriage. Then, they got married on 01.07.2022 and also registered their marriage. Thereafter, in the presence of some friends, they performed marriage in a temple. After that, applicant no.1 went to his native place at Uttarkashi on the pretext of organizing a reception party and assured her to return on 06th July, but he did not return. When the respondent went to the house of applicant no.1, he and his family members misbehaved with her; assaulted her; used caste coloured remarks; threatened her with dire consequences and ousted her from their house. The said complaint of the respondent was ordered to be registered as complaint case. 3. After registration of complaint, the statement of respondent was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of one Anjana Rawat was also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint and summoned the applicants on 05.02.2023. 2 2025:UHC:3599 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent and her family members were converted Christian and they also pressurized applicant no.1 to adopt Christianity, for which, he denied and just to create pressure, she moved various complaints against the applicant no.1 to marry her and accordingly, the marriage was held and the same was registered. He further submits that since the applicant no.1 was transferred to Uttarakashi and got a residential quarter allotted by the department, therefore, respondent got annoyed with him and moved the present complaint. Furthermore, the witness examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident and there is contradiction in her statement and averment made in the complaint. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicants has raised the serious disputed question of facts before this Court and the same can only be examined during course of trial, thus the present C482 application is liable to be dismissed. He further stated that the trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicants. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Renuka vs. State of Karnatka and & other; reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 743. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record. 7. From perusal of the complaint FIR as well as the summoning order, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. Hence, the cognizance has 3 2025:UHC:3599 rightly been taken by the learned trial court and the applicants have rightly been summoned. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court does not want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on the point that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails and the same is dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.05.2025 AK 4