Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23231 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajitesh Sharma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 15.07.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 571 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are the husband, mother-in-law (saas), father-in-law (sasur), brother-in-law (devar) and grand father-in-law (dada) of the respondent no. 3, Pooja Rai having no concern either with her alleged maltreatment in her matrimonial home or with the alleged demand for dowry, yet they have been falsely implicated by the respondent no. 3 with the ulterior intention of harassing them. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 3, Pooja Rai, wife of petitioner no. 1, Ajitesh Sharma containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against the entire family of her husband that they were demanding motorcycle, golden chain and Rs. 50,000/- cash as additional dowry from her and her parents and on account of non fulfillment of the aforesaid demand of dowry, she was maltreated and tortured by them in her matrimonial home. He next submitted that the allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is confined to petitioner no. 4, Atulesh Sharma, brother-in-law (devar) alone and the offence under Section 511 I.P.C. has been attributed to petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 who are the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) of the respondent no. 3. He lastly submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity and hence the impugned FIR qua petitioner nos. 2 to 5 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegation made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.
As far as petitioner no. 1, Ajitesh Sharma is concerned, who is the husband of respondent no. 3, Pooja Rai, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is directed that in case he appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SA