Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13619 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sumit Vashishth And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri S. S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
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 01.03.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 26 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 377, 376, 511 I.P.C. and 66 I. T. Act and 3 /4 D. P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Agra.
Record shows that this matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court by order dated 25.05.2018. The report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 16.08.2018 indicates that Mediation between the parties has failed.
In view of the above, we proceed to examine this matter on merit.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 Dinesh Chand Sharma father of Shikha Sharma wife of petitioner no. 1 Sumit Vashishth roping in the entire family of her husband including his father Bhakti Narayan Vashishth petitioner no. 2, mother Usha Vashishth petitioner no.3, sister Priti Sharma petitioner no. 4 and brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Sanjay Sharma, petitioner no. 5 falsely alleging commission of offences by all the petitioners under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 3 /4 D. P. Act. Allegations regarding commission of offences under Sections 377 I.P.C. and 66 I.T. Act have been made against the petitioner no. 1 Sumit Vashishth (husband) while allegation for the offences under Sections 376 and 511 I.P.C. are alleged to have been committed by petitioner no. 5 Sanjay Sharma. Moreover, apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity and hence the impugned FIR qua petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and Sri S. S. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegation made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR, 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. 2, 3 and 4 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.
As far as petitioner no. 1, Sumit Vashishth (husband) and petitioner no. 5 Sanjay Sharma (nandoi) are concerned, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is directed that in case they 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) With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 AKT