Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11372 of 2019 Petitioner :- Teetu Pal And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri Kandarp Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 05.12.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 1356 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 511 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kankarkheda, District-Meerut.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against them while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 Smt. Lalita. There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version which creates serious doubt about its veracity. There was no demand of dowry. The respondent no.3 has roped the entire family members so as to build pressure upon them. Hence the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.The first information report has been lodged by the victim herself narrating her agony and pain in natural manner. There is no embellishment in the prosecution version. The victim will not invite indelible stigma upon her career by attributing false allegations upon others. The conduct of the petitioners are highly contemptible and scornful hence they do not deserve any indulgence.
From the perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the serious offences which cannot be oversighted by this Court at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to put forth any justifiable ground for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019/Rahul.