Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4377 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neeta Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned brief-holder for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 4.1.2018, registered as case crime no. 4 of 2018, u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bichhawa, district Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner is the mother-in- law of the deceased. The marriage between the son of petitioner and the deceased was solemnized in June, 2017. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 who is the father of the deceased roping in the entire family of husband of the deceased containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against them that they were demanding dowry from her and her parents and on account of non fulfilment of the alleged demands of dowry she was being tortured and maltreated by them in her matrimonial home. The deceased caught fire while cooking food. Hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that as per post-mortem report, cause of death is burning. vehemently refuted the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses the cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Gaurav