BABA BABU LAL SAINI @SHRI SHRI 1008 FAKIRANAND MAHARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C., is preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the cognizance/ summoning order dated 10.09.2015 and also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1250 of 2015 Narayan Singh Bohra vs. Baba Babu Lal Saini and others under section 498 IPC pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital as well as order dated 31.08.2016 passed by Sessions Judge Nainital, in criminal revision no. 116 of 2015, Baba Babu Lal Saini @ Shri Shri 1008 Fakiranand Maharaj vs. State, whereby the revision of appellant no. 1 was dismissed affirming the order dated 10.09.215.

(2.) Respondent no. 2 filed complaint against the petitioners with the allegations that respondent no. 2 got married with Vidhya Bohra on 29.04.1997 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. It is also mentioned in the complainant that there is no issue out of the wed-lock. Respondent no. 2 is deployed as Naib Subedar in Indian Army at Goa. It was agreed between respondent no. 2 and his wife that they would proceed for Goa. When respondent no. 2 reached Haldwani and contacted his wife on phone, he came to know that Baba Babu Lal Saini along with his followers enticed away his wife from her parental home to pathankot. It is alleged that when he reached at Pathankot on 05.06.2016 in the Ram Dev Ashram and told his wife to come with him then Baba Babu Lal Saini @ Shri Shri 1008 Fakiranand Maharaj and his followers did marpeet with him.

(3.) The averments made in the present application are that due to matrimonial discord between the husband (respondent no. 2) and his wife, the petitioners have been implicated in the present case with false allegation. It is averred that to meet the spiritual calm and happiness, wife of respondent no. 2 visited Ram Dev Ashram situated at Pathankot and decided to left her matrimonial house and engaged herself in worship at Ram Dev Ashram. It is also averred that being unskilled lady and having no source of income she moved an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the District Judge (Family Court) Pathankot for seeking maintenance from respondent no. 2.