Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20237 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vikrant @ Vikki Yadav And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3, Surendra Yadav containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 is husband, applicant no.2 is mother-in- law, applicant no.3 is father-in-law, applicant no.4 is jeth, applicant no.5 is married nanad and applicant no.6 is nandoi of Sandhya Yadav d/o respondent No.3 Surendra Yadav. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima-facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no scope of interfering in the F.I.R, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is directed that till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioner No.1 appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies 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 in2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Manish Tripathi