Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2730 of 2021 Petitioner :- Usha Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 20.02.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 1 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Mahila Thana Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra.
The allegations in the impugned first information report, which has been lodged by the fourth respondent against her husband (petitioner no.2) and her mother-in-law (petitioner no.1), are that the informant was married to the petitioner no.2 in the year 2012. Initially, there was no trouble but after expiry of one year, informant's harassment began and she was tortured as being infertile. It is alleged that such torture continued so as to force her to leave her matrimonial home so that her husband could marry again. But since informant was not leaving her matrimonial home, a conspiracy was hatched. Whereunder, the informant was given allurement to get job as a teacher near hear maternal home in district Sonebhadra with a promise that her husband would maintain regular contact. Pursuant thereto, the informant left her matrimonial home for district Sonebhadra in the year 2019. Since then she had been deserted by her husband. It is alleged that on 16.01.2021, at about 5.10 pm, the petitioner no.2 came to her house, at Sonebhadra, and stated that he would not keep the informant and, therefore, she should accept a divorce. He also abused her by calling her bitch and threatened to exterminate her.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled are absolutely false. The informant had, on her own, left her matrimonial home and when proceedings for divorce were instituted by the petitioner no.2, with a mala fide intention, the impugned first information report was lodged. It has thus been argued that the impugned first information report being mala fide is liable to be quashed.
It is well settled that where the allegations made in the impugned first information report disclose commission of cognizable offence, the matter has to be investigated and if, during the course of investigation, sufficient material is found to enable the investigating agency to prosecute the accused, they may submit a charge-sheet and if no material is found to enable the prosecution, they can submit a final report. But since the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence, the matter would have to be investigated and, therefore, the prayer to quash the first information report is liable to be rejected, at this stage.
In so far as protection from arrest is concerned, as has been prayed for by the petitioners, during the pendency of investigation, keeping in mind that now in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the provisions of anticipatory bail have been restored, it is open to the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail or for regular bail, as may be advised.
The petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail/anticipatory bail, as may be advised.
Order Date :- 7.4.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari