Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15433 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sushma and 3 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Yadav, Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Arjun Singh Yadav and Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.S. Rajbhar learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 21.5.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 50 of 2019, under sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Kaushambi, District Kaushambi.
Matter relates to heinous offence, i.e., dowry death on account of beating and forcible administration of poison, contention of the petitioners that they are mother-in-law (saas), father-in-law (sasur), brother-in-law (devar) and sister-in-law (nanad) and have never treated the victim with cruelty and have been falsely implicated can only examined in appropriate jurisdiction. Prima facie cognizable offence is made out.
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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Ram Murti