Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24314 of 2019 Petitioner :- Meera And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satya Narayan Yadav
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.GA. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 23.10.2019 lodged at Case Crime No. 17 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Etah.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.3 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner no.1 & 2 and other petitioners are her in-laws. The F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners in respect of alleged ill-treatment meted to respondent no.3 on account of non-fulfillment of demand for dowry. It is further submitted that respondent no.3 now does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners and there are chances of amicable settlement. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner 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.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the F.I.R., hence the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. 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 :- 29.11.2019 Ashok Gupta