JUDGMENT R.C. Deepak and G.P. Srivastva, JJ.
1. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged.
2. We have heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi and Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The prayer sought in the present writ petition is for quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered as case crime no. 1 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pertaining to Police Station Mahila Thana, District Allahabad or other relief as appear expedient in the interest of justice under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The marriage of the victim Garima Srivastava was solemnized on 31.1.1998 with Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. There are serious allegations against the petitioners of ill-treatment, harassment and torture to the above-named victim and her parents regarding the demand of dowry which allegedly began from the very next day of her marriage i.e. 1.2.1998. Certain lakhs of rupees were paid in this regard. It is further alleged that the demand of dowry and torture continued, as on 11.12.2005 the victim was beaten by her husband at Jamnagar (Gujrat) at the residence of her in-laws' house. On information, her old father, retired from service, approached her, but the victim, her little daughter and father suffered injuries at his hands and on the intervention of the inhabitants of the locality, they were saved. Relating to this occurrence, a complaint was made at police station J.P. Road, Baroda (Gujrat), Their injuries were examined. The same have also been brought on record. Anyhow, they managed the fare and returned to Allahabad. The surrounding circumstances compelled Smt. Garima Srivastava to file an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the gravity of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and in absence of any convincing ground pointed out on behalf of the petitioners to warrant interference in the same, we arc not inclined to make any interference in the impugned F.I.R..
6. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. We have only pointed out the facts and circumstances available on record and any finding in this regard shall in no way influence the trial court in deciding and disposing of the case on merit in accordance with law.
8. Another aspect of the matter is also very peculiar and astonishing. Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has filed his own affidavit wherein it is mentioned that a threatening telephonic call was given to him to the effect that if he contest the case against Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, he and his children will be killed. The relevant portions of the conversation are noted below :
Caller : Hello, kya tum Ashok Nath Tripathi ho.
Ashok: Jee Haan.
Caller : Kya tum Garima ka case lad rahe ho.
Ashok: Jee Haan.
Caller : Tum Rajesh kay khilaaf mukadama karogay to tumkey main katwa daalugaa. Tumhare bacchon ko uthwa loonga, Yaad rahe.
Ashok : Aapjo bhi ho, saamne aakar boat kariyay.
Caller : Waqt aane per saamne bhi aayange.
9. The abovenamed deponent has also prayed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad be directed to provide him adequate security and the F.I.R. in this regard be also lodged.
10. The alleged mischief is cognizable one. It cannot be overlooked summarily and enquiry is necessarily required to be made to work out the truth for the maintenance of majesty of law.
11. Therefore, we observe that in the event, Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel makes an application regarding the threatening and misbehaviour, as mentioned in his affidavit, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, the authority concerned shall provide adequate security to Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi and get the matter enquired by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and proceed in accordance with law.
12. However, in case the petitioners put in their appearance or are produced before the courts below and make application for their release on bail in case crime no. 1 of 2006, their bail application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as may be convenient in accordance with law.