Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20197 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Bahadur And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 30.6.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 33 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Firozabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned FIR has been lodged by Respondent No.5, who is wife of petitioner No.1, containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners regarding commission of offence by them under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned FIR no credible evidence whatsoever has been collected by the I.O. which may show the complicity of the petitioner nos. 2 to 10 who are mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani, Devar, Nanad, Uncle-in-law, Maternal uncle and Fufuya Sas of respondent. no.5. The role of petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 are clearly distinguishable from that of the petitioner No.1 Raj Bahadur husband of Respondent No. 5 qua the petitioner nos. 2 to 10, the impugned FIR is liable to be qushed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Surendra Singh appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the injury report of the injured Phoolmala respondent no.5 indicates that she has received fracture and hence the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed.
On the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, including the injury report of Respondent No.5 produced before us by learned counsel for the Respondent No.5, we are not inclined to quash the same.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner Nos. 4 to 10 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) 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.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Manish Tripathi