2025:UHC:4276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 16th May, 2025 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 802 OF 2021 Dr. Shah Fadad and Others …Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents Counsel for the Applicants : Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipushmola Joshi and Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocates. Counsel for the State : Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Akshay Pradhan, No. 2 Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This application arises from a matrimonial dispute between Dr. Shah Fahad (Applicant No. 1) and his wife, Kushhal (Respondent No. 2), who married on 15.12.2016, in a marriage that has since irretrievably broken down. The applicants,Dr. Fahad, his parents, and uncle, assert it was a love marriage without dowry, and that Kushhal refused to live in Roorkee due to her career in Delhi. Dr. Fahad filed a restitution petition in August 2020. 2. Respondent no. 2, namely, Kushhal, however, alleges dowry harassment, including demands of ₹1 crore and a car for a hospital, as well as physical and mental cruelty. She also accuses Dr. Fahad of an affair with a colleague, Dr. Nitisha Rathee, and refers to an assault incident in November 2019. 1 Criminal Misc. Application No. 802 of 2021 – Dr. Shah Fahad and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4276 After failed mediation, she lodged FIR No. 678/2020 under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. During investigation, witness statements were recorded supporting her version. However, the charge-sheet dated 20.02.2021 dropped the dowry charges while retaining the rest. Cognizance was taken by the ACJM, Roorkee, in April 2021. 4. The applicants seek quashing of the FIR and proceedings, calling the case a retaliatory move to the restitution suit. They rely on the omission of dowry charges to argue a lack of credibility. The State and Respondent No. 2 oppose the plea, asserting that the remaining allegations are serious, supported by evidence, and require trial. The case thus raises the question whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process or warrant judicial scrutiny. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings are a gross abuse of process, initiated with mala fide intent to pressurize Applicant No. 1, Dr. Shah Fahad, amid a strained matrimonial dispute. It is pointed out that the FIR was lodged only after Dr. Fahad filed a restitution suit, suggesting retaliation rather than genuine grievance. 7. It is argued that the FIR contains vague and general allegations, lacking specific instances of cruelty or dowry demands. The applicants claim the marriage was a love marriage, free from any dowry transaction, as both families are educated and financially sound. The complainant, a working woman based in Delhi, is alleged to have fabricated 2 Criminal Misc. Application No. 802 of 2021 – Dr. Shah Fahad and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4276 the complaint due to her unwillingness to relocate post- marriage. 8. The counsel emphasises that the investigating officer dropped the dowry-related charges (Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) for lack of evidence, showing no prima facie case. Applicant No. 4, Arshad Ali, who lives separately, is said to have been wrongly implicated without any specific allegations. 9. Reliance is placed on the Mahila Help Line report and the charge-sheet to argue that the dispute is purely matrimonial, with no criminal element warranting trial. Continuation of proceedings, it is urged, would amount to misuse of the judicial process and cause undue harm to the applicants. 10. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submitted that the FIR discloses specific and serious allegations of cruelty, physical assault, and harassment for dowry. It was contended that the complainant has clearly narrated the repeated instances of ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws, including demands of ₹1 crore and a car, and that she was assaulted and pressurized to bring money from her parental home. 11. The State submits that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses—Julfikar Ali, Sadik, Soyeb, and Varsha Taraniya—recorded under Section 161 CrPC corroborate the FIR and support the prosecution’s case. These statements, it is argued, cannot be discarded at the pre-trial stage. 12. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet was filed after a proper investigation, and the Magistrate took cognizance upon due application of judicial mind. The State 3 Criminal Misc. Application No. 802 of 2021 – Dr. Shah Fahad and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4276 contends that the material collected establishes a prima facie case, and this is not a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 13. The present application, according to the State, is an attempt to derail lawful proceedings and delay trial in a case involving serious matrimonial offences. The prayer for quashing is therefore liable to be dismissed. 14. This Court has carefully examined the FIR, witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the charge-sheet dated 20.02.2021, and affidavits filed by both sides. The dispute stems from a matrimonial relationship that has broken down irretrievably. The complainant alleges dowry demand, physical and mental cruelty, and extramarital involvement of Applicant No. 1. 15. Specific allegations include a demand for ₹1 crore and a car, as well as an assault incident involving Dr. Nitisha. However, these serious claims are unsupported by independent evidence or by the contents of the charge-sheet. Notably, the dowry-related offences under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were dropped by the Investigating Officer for want of credible material, significantly weakening the foundation of the complaint. 16. These witnesses, being acquaintances of the complainant, do not offer independent corroboration of the allegations. 17. A relevant consideration is that Applicant No. 1 had already filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the FIR was lodged. During Mahila Helpline counselling, he expressed willingness to resume cohabitation, which was declined by the complainant. This sequence suggests the FIR 4 Criminal Misc. Application No. 802 of 2021 – Dr. Shah Fahad and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4276 may have been filed as a retaliatory response to the civil proceedings. 18. Applicant No. 4, who is stated to live separately, has been named in the FIR without any specific role or overt act. His implication appears to be excessive and unsupported by any material on record. 19. While this Court does not assess the merits of evidence under Section 482 CrPC, it is bound to intervene where the allegations lack foundational substance and the criminal process appears to be misused. In the present case, the continuation of proceedings, particularly against Applicants No. 2, 3, and 4, would serve no useful purpose and appears to be vindictive in nature. 20. The facts and materials on record do not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon’ble Supreme Court outlined categories where quashing is justified, especially where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or where the proceedings are actuated by mala fides. 21. Similarly, in Mahesh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 4 SCC 439, it was held that when a prosecution is clearly motivated by a civil dispute, the criminal process should not become a tool of harassment. While civil disputes may have criminal overtones, courts must ensure criminal law is not misused for private vendettas. 22. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations levelled are primarily rooted in a strained matrimonial context and are either unsubstantiated by independent evidence or too general to warrant a full-fledged criminal trial. The FIR was lodged subsequent to civil proceedings initiated by the 5 Criminal Misc. Application No. 802 of 2021 – Dr. Shah Fahad and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4276 husband, and the material collected does not disclose any specific, actionable offence against the applicants. In such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 23. Criminal law must not become a means to settle personal grievances. Where the allegations lack substance and continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment, intervention under Section 482 CrPC is warranted to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is satisfied that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1059 of 2021, State vs. Dr. Shah Fahad and others, arising out of FIR No. 678 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC, are hereby quashed as against all the applicants. No order as to costs. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 16.05.2025 SB 6 Criminal Misc. Application No. 802 of 2021 – Dr. Shah Fahad and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. Ashish Naithani J.