2026:HHC:24003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 992 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Umesh Verma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate, (through Video Conferencing). For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 57 of 2021 dated 13.7.2021 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (xi) & 3 (1) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SCST Act”), registered at WPS Baddi along with consequential proceedings. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that 2026:HHC:24003 2 FIR sought to be quashed came to be registered against the petitioner by respondent No.2-Chandni Verma (in short the “complainant”), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 15.8.2014, at KC Residency as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Since complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category, there were certain reservations in the family with regard to marriage inter-se petitioner and respondent No.2, however on the persuasion of the petitioner and complainant, both families agreed and marriage was solemnized, however after some time, matrimonial discord inter-se petitioner and respondent No.2 occurred, as a result of which, complainant started living with her parents. Subsequent to her living in her matrimonial house, complainant lodged FIR, alleging therein that she was constantly harassed, maltreated and tortured for bringing less dowry. She also alleged that on number of occasions, she was compelled to bring money from her parents. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the petitioner, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of FIR on the ground that no case much less under Sections 498A, 406, 506 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) & 3 (1) (xv) of SCST Act, is made out against the petitioner. 2026:HHC:24003 3 3. While making this Court peruse contents of the FIR vis-à-vis certain documents adduced on record vehemently argued that false allegation of demanding dowry has been leveled against the petitioner. He submitted that allegation leveled in the FIR are false because petitioner purchased flat in the name of complainant and till date, he has been paying installments qua the same. It is further submitted that allegation of demanding money by the petitioner for establishing the business is also wrong because till date, petitioner has been paying installments qua the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-, which he had raised for establishing business. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the registration of FIR sought to be quashed submitted that bare perusal of allegations contained in the FIR suggests that complainant was being maltreated and tortured for bringing less dowry. While making this Court peruse final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC, Mr. Kahol stated that ample evidence has been collected on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner not only received gold ornaments etc. at the time of his marriage, rather he had also been receiving money from his in-laws on one pretext or the other. While making this court peruse provisions contained under Section 498-A IPC, Mr. Kahol stated that once complainant is able to prove that she was being constantly 2026:HHC:24003 4 coerced to bring money from her parental house, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the police while registering case under Section 498A IPC. He further contended that there are specific allegations with regard to extension of threats as well as beatings allegedly given to the complainant during her stay at matrimonial house and as such, police also rightly registered case under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 34 of IPC. He submitted that offence under Section 498-A IPC was complete with the demand of dowry. Lastly, Mr. Kahol, contended that since challan stands filed in the competent court of law, this Court may not exercise power under Section 528 of BNSS because in that event, respondent-State would be precluded from leading evidence, which at present, is totally against the petitioner to prove his case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 6. During proceedings of the case, this Court came to be apprised that no merit in the case registered against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) (xi) & 3 (1) (xv) of SCST Act was found and as such, learned Sessions Judge has already committed the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial of the petitioner under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 34 of IPC and as such, in the instant proceedings, court is only required to see 2026:HHC:24003 5 whether prima-facie case if any, is made out against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 34 of IPC or not. 7. Having carefully perused allegations contained in the FIR as well as final report under Section 173 CrPC, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that no case much less under Section 498A IPC is made out against the petitioner. Bare perusal of statement made by the complainant, on the basis of which, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged, reveals that after there being matrimonial discord inter-se complainant and her husband, she was compelled to live in her parental house. After having left her matrimonial house, she lodged a complaint, stating therein that from the day one of her marriage with petitioner, she was constantly harassed and tortured for bringing less dowry. She has also alleged that petitioner despite his having received gold ornaments as well as other household articles during his marriage with her kept on demanding money from her parents on different occasions. She specifically alleged that her parents had provided money to the petitioner for setting up her business as well as for purchase of flat. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, police after having conducted investigation has filed challan under Section 173 CrPC, perusal whereof revels that substance was found in the allegations of the petitioner. 2026:HHC:24003 6 8. With a view to prove its case, prosecution has adduced on record documentary as well as oral evidence, perusal whereof nowhere suggests that same is not sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law. Similarly, this Court finds that there are specific allegations with regard to beatings as well as extension of threats, which stand substantiated with the material adduced on record by the investigating agency along with final report under Section 173 of CrPC. 9. Learned Sessions Judge has already examined the entire material adduced on record with the final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC and after his being satisfied that no case is made out under the SCST Act, has committed the case to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial under other provisions of law. 10. No doubt, while exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS, this court has ample power to quash the FIR in case it is satisfied that no prima-facie case is made out against the accused and evidentiary value of material collected on record is not such that in any probability, accused named in the FIR, would be punished, but as has been discussed in detail herein above, prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law and investigating agency has collected on record 2026:HHC:24003 7 sufficient material to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence. 11. Consequently, in view of the above this court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed. Needless to say, any observation/finding returned in the instant petition is only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and same shall have no bearing on the main case pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which shall be decided in the totality of facts as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. June 22, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge