Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37473 of 2018 Petitioner :- Istekhar And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Faisal Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shams Uz Zaman
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the first informant.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 24.11.2018 lodged in Case Crime No. 89 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 354B I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Baghpat.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.3 and remaining petitioners are family members of the petitioner no.1, who have been falsely implicated on false and vague allegations of ill- treatment by her husband and other family members, on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and she was ousted from her matrimonial house. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioners cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioners should not be effectuated by the police personnel.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant submitted that within a short span of marriage, the respondent no.3 was tortured and harassed for the additional demand of dowry and she was ousted from her matrimonial house, hence the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the FIR, hence the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioners that they would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.
In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioners is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which they are wanted, the concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 S.Ali