Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22690 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dipanshu Pandey And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Anubhav Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on account of matrimonial discord between the spouse, the husband-petitioner no.1 along with the entire family members have been falsely implicated in the present case by the respondent no.4 on general allegations, which is against the settled principles of law as laid down in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741. Learned counsel further contends that the present proceedings has been initiated after four years of the alleged incidents in which the entire family members have been falsely implicated in the present which itself falsifies the prosecution story. It is next contended that the husband-petitioner no.1 had medically treated his wife in Shivam Nursing Home Meerut when she was under labour pain and stillborn baby was born in the year 2013 and thereafter after lapse of 4 1/2 years, the present proceedings has been initiated which is bad in law. It is lastly contended that even bare reading of the F.I.R., would go to show that the prosecution story is highly improbable as such the prosecution of the petitioners cannot be sustained.
From the perusal of the F. I. R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with the F. I. R.
Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F. I. R. is refused.
So far as the petitioner no.1-husband namely, Dipanshu Pandey is concerned the following order is being passed:-
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case, the petitioner no.1-husband appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies f or bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible, on the same day by the courts below in view of the settled law laid 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 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
So far as the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are concerned the following order is being passed:-
However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and nature of allegations made in the F. I. R., it is directed that the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 shall not be arrested pursuant to the F.I.R., dated 19.06.2018 lodged in Case Crime No.217 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station Madho Tanda, District Pilibhit, till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018/S.Ali