Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1445 of 2019 Petitioner :- Deepak Prajapati And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri Om Prakash Yadav for the petitioners and A.G.A. for State of U.P.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 30.12.2018 (registered as Case Crime No. 0868 of 2018), u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 294, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, district Jhansi.
In substance, allegation made in the F.I.R. is that Smt. Manju was married to Deepak Prajapati, petitioner-1, on 16.5.2017. Subsequently, the accused began to demand Rs. 2 lakhs as additional dowry and one golden chain. Due to non-fulfilment of dowry, the accused are torturing the informant. They have also tried to burn her by pouring kerosene oil on her, but she was saved somehow.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the husband and wife dispute, false F.I.R. has been lodged, in which, all the family members, including the relations, have been implicated.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Dispute of facts is to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence, not by this Court at this stage. As such the prayer for quashing the FIR in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, if Deepak Prajapati (petitioner-1) appears before the court concerned and applies for bail, then his bail application shall be decided on the same day on which he is taken into custody as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India, reported in [2018 SCC Online SC 1501].
So far as other petitioners, i.e. Ghanshyam Prajapati, Sakun Prajapati, Mahendra Prajapati, Reeya Prajapati, Ramesh @ Rinku Prajapati, Poonam @ Rinku Prajapati, Poonam Prajapati and Umesh Prajapati (petitioner-2 to 8) are concerned, counsel for the petitioners states that in matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, entire family members have been falsely implicated and petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of law laid down by Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741.
In view of above, Ghanshyam Prajapati, Sakun Prajapati, Mahendra Prajapati, Reeya Prajapati, Ramesh @ Rinku Prajapati, Poonam @ Rinku Prajapati, Poonam Prajapati and Umesh Prajapati (petitioner-2 to 8) shall not be arrested in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 30.12.2018 (registered as Case Crime No. 0868 of 2018), u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 294, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, district Jhansi, till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Jaideep/-