Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5172 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ruksana
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.9.2017 registered as Case Crime No.902 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bardari, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the marriage between the deceased and son of petitioner, namely, Pintu alias Sartaz was solemnized two years prior to the incident, the deceased was forcibly taken by her family members from the house of the petitioner, she was assaulted by them and thereafter done to death. The husband of the deceased is already confined in jail. He next argued that brother of the deceased has admitted her to the hospital, which shows that she died in her parent's house. The cause of death of the deceased is not known, hence, viscera was preserved. Moreover, falsity of the prosecution case is evident from the fact that father-in-law and devar of the deceased who were employed in Mumbai and they too have been implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 NS