Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5507 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajbansh Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Singh,Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Singh Kaushik
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned A.G.A. 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 FIR dated 28.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No.3 of 2019, under Sections 498-A,323,495,504,506,313 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the respondent no.4 who has lodged the FIR on 28.1.2019 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners that they had tortured and humiliated her on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry; that they had concealed the fact that her husband (co-accused Santosh Singh) had already performed marriage with one Monika who had earlier lodged an FIR on 18.11.2017 against the petitioners and her husband. The petitioners and co-accused Santosh Singh had approached another Bench of this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28126 of 2017 which was finally disposed of by order dated 18.12.2017 directing that they shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and they shall participate and co-operate with the investigation. Prima facie no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no.4 as she was never married with Santosh Singh. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the 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.
From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, 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 petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners 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 the petitioners 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 of.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 M. Tariq