Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2852 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Priyanka And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 02.03.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 59 of 2021,under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Mundali, District- Meerut, with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the said F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 (Smt. Priyanka) solemnized her marriage on 21.11.2020 (copy of the marriage certificate has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) with Sandeep Tomar (since deceased). The family members of Sandeep Tomar were not pleased with the aforesaid marriage, as such, they started to torture and demanded dowry of Rs. five lacs from the petitioner no. 1. On refusal to fulfill the aforesaid demand, they committed marrpeet with the petitioner no. 1 and ousted her from house. From the side of the petitioner no.1, an F.I.R. was lodged under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and under section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mundali, District Meerut against Sandeep Tomar (husband) and other family members. On the other hand, the impugned F.I.R dated 02.03.2021 registered as Case Crime No.59 of 2021 under Section 306 I.P.C. P.S. Mundali, District Meerut has also filed just to harass the family members of the petitioners. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per Contra - learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. and argued that in the impugned F.I.R., it has been mentioned that Rupees Five lacs were demanded by the family members of the petitioner no.1, who is wife of the deceased. Further argued that on refusal to fulfill the aforesaid demand, F.I.R of dowry demand was lodged. The family members of the petitioner no.1 has also threatened to the deceased. From allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., a cognizable offence is made out, therefore, impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
From the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we do not find it to be a fit case for quashing the impugned F.I.R., hence, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 aks