Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Nandprabha Shukla, learned AGA for the State/respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Vishwanath Pratap Singh, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the First Information Report dated 22.01.2021 registered as F.I.R. No.0027 of 2021, under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Hariyawan, District Hardoi and also prays to issue a direction respondents no. 1 to 3 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned F.I.R.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the husband of the private respondent. The respondent no.4 has married with the petitioner according to her free will and in the marriage, the family members of the petitioner was not participated. He argued that there was no occasion for the petitioner and his family members to demand any dowry from the private respondent. He also argued that co-accused Rajendra Singh Yadav, Smt. Satyavati alias Rajkumari, Krishna Pal Singh and Smt. Priti Devi (in F.I.R. Jyoti Singh), who are the family members of the petitioner, have approached this Court by filing Misc. Bench No. 14554 of 2021 : Rajendra Singh Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which, interim protection has been granted by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2021. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner may also be granted the interim protection. He also argued that the private respondent has filed the impugned F.I.R. with oblique motive and just to harass the petitioner, hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be dismissed.
Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to quash the impugned F.I.R. and argued that it transpires from the impugned F.I.R. that there is specific allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband of complainant/private respondent, for demand of dowry, therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the co-accused and the petitioner is not entitled to get similar interim protection as has been granted to co-accused persons. She also argued that from perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the private respondent and there is specific allegation against the petitoner for demand of dowry, we are of the view that since the investigation is at initial stage and impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Ajit/-