Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Bhup Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4.
Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel is directed to file his Power in the Registry of this Court.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 08.12.2020 lodged as FIR No.0481 of 2020 under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at police station Chanda, District Sultanpur with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased and is employed as a driver in a Company in Delhi and the daughter of the respondent no.4 was married to the son of the petitioner on 08.12.2016 and after four years of marriage the deceased committed suicide.
It is further submitted that the impugned FIR was lodged against the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased and they all are in jail and the sister-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by the competent Court. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the impugned FIR nor in the statement given by the mother, father or uncle of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer, but after three and a half months of the incident, on the statement of two elder sisters of the deceased, Smt. Kaushalya and Smt. Usha, who have made allegations against the petitioner, which is an after thought and cannot be relied upon, thus, the petitioner was impleaded in the crime in question, hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for private respondent on the other hand opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and submitted that the no such statement of the informant or mother or of the brother of the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, after four days of the incident when the respondent no.4 came to know about the said statements respondent no.4 and his son, who is the brother of the deceased, filed an affidavit, which was treated to be statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is also part of the case diary, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner that the co-accused persons named in the FIR, who are family members of the petitioner have murdered the deceased by giving her poison and the participation of the petitioner has come into light during the course of investigation and also in the statement recorded of the sisters of the deceased, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(Saroj Yadav, J.)(Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Arnima