2025:UHC:2108 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 9 of 2024 24 March, 2025 Aneep Gupta And Others --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy A.G. with Mr. Devendra Singh, A.G.A. for the State Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral) By means of present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petitioners seek to quash the cognizance order dated 04.05.2024 passed by 6th Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.4661 of 2024 (FIR No.193 of 2023) “State vs. Aneep Gupta and others” for the offence punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists /accused would submit that the allegations levelled against the revisionists/accused in the FIR are absurd and improbable and no case is made out on the basis of same. 1 2025:UHC:2108 3. Learned State Counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant, per contra, would submit that the probability and credibility of the allegations is to be tested at the anvil of the evidences in the trial court and provision of Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is not made for this purpose. 4. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on file. 5. In the FIR, there are specific allegations of demand of dowry and torture meted out to the respondent-wife at the hands of the revisionists. It is also specifically stated that the revisionists did not use to give food to respondent no.2 due to which she became ill after which she went to her parental house for treatment but thereafter the behavior of the revisionists became more rude towards her. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the allegations so made in the FIR disclose commission of offence and prima facie constitute cognizable offence against the revisionists. Having said so, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance in the matter. No interference is, therefore, warranted. 7. Accordingly, present petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. 2 2025:UHC:2108 8. Revisionists are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.04.2025 at 10:30 AM. Trial Court need not to sent any notice for appearance of the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionists is requested to inform the revisionists to appear before the Trial Court on the aforesaid date. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 24.03.2025 Rajni 3