Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25768 of 2019 Petitioner :- Priyanshu Jain And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Srivastava,Ram Narayan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikash Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 04.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 2303 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 342, 427 I.P.C.
and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad.
Allegations made in the F.I.R. are that the informant was married to Priyanshu Jain- petitioner No. 1. Her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were demanding a flat in Sahibabad and also Rs. 20 lacs in cash. On non-fulfilment of the said demand, they used to torture her by beating her and keeping her hungry and thirsty. Further allegation is that on 27.10.2019, her husband at the instigation of his mother, father, brother and brother's wife Neha, committed mar-peet with her and damaged her mobile on the suspicion that there may be some evidence against them. Her husband had threatened her that he will get her murdered by his friends.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and fabricated. The respondent No. 4 wanted to live separately and thus he was living in a separate accommodation. Respondent No. 4 wanted to get transferred all his properties in her name therefore, she started abusing and misbehaving all his family members and lodged the present F.I.R. by making false allegations.
Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report.
The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.
With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SY