SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 2275

[2009(6) ADJ 222 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAVINDRA SINGH AND NAHEED ARA MOONIS, JJ.
MANASVI KUMAR AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7803 of 2009, decided on 15th May, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Manish Tiwary and Ashwini Kumar Awasthi for the Petitioners; A.G.A. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 156(3)—Offence of murder—In a preplanned manner—F.I.R.—Quashing of—Territorial jurisdiction of Court—Offence under Section 302, IPC—Intention to commit murder of deceased—FIR not lodged due to ulterior motive—Since impugned FIR constituting the cognizable offence, the FIR not barred by any provision of law, no ground to quash the same—Prayer for stay of arrest of petitioner refused. [Paras 6, 7 and 8]

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners Manasvi Kumar and Manoj Kumar with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 17.2.2009 of Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 and his subordinate officers not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the report registered as Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun or any order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case may be issued.

2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 3 Dr. Bhagwan Das Verma on 17.2.2009 at 2.00 p.m. at police station Kotwali Orai in case crime No. 98 of 2009 under Section 302, I.P.C. in respect of the incident which had occurred from 13.12.2008 to 14.12.2008 at 7.00 p.m. alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Dr. Pooja Verma was solemnised with petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 3, the father of the deceased, spent money of about 15 lacs in the said marriage even then the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the purpose of realising some more money from the deceased because she was earning about Rs. 49,000/- per month as salary. Respondent No. 3 was informed by the deceased in the first week of December 2008 that she was having apprehension of her death from her husband and father-in-law. The deceased was staying at Orai in the month of December 2008 at her uncle Roop Ram Verma’s house but for the purpose of committing her murder in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, she was persuaded by the petitioners on 13.12.2008 to go in their company then she was brought by them from Orai to Agra on 13.12.2008 and they left Agra in a Car for going to Delhi on 14.12.2008 but on the way to Delhi at about 7.00 p.m., in a pre-planned scheme for the purpose of committing the murder of the deceased, the car driven by petitioner No. 1 collided with a tractor having trolley, the petitioner No. 1 opened the door of his car and pushed out the deceased on the road consequently, she sustained serious injuries and succumbed to her injuries on 16.12.2008. The deceased was the only daughter of the respondent No. 3 that is why he remained in shocking condition so that the FIR could not be promptly lodged. The conspiracy of the murder of the deceased was given effect from Orai to the place of occurrence where collision of the vehicle was taken place. The FIR was not directly written by the police authorities, thereafter he moved the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the same was allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on 28.1.2009 in pursuance of the order dated 28.1.2009, passed by learned C.J.M. Jalaun at Orai, the FIR of this case was registered at police station Kotwali Orai on 17.2.2009. Being aggrieved from the above mentioned FIR, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the same.

3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari and Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that :

(i) The allegations as set out in FIR are absolutely false, neither the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Jalaun was having any jurisdiction to register and investigate the impugned FIR nor the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai was having the jurisdiction for directing the SHO of Police Station Kotwali Orai to register the case and investigate the same in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. vide order dated 28.1.2009 because he was not having the territorial jurisdiction.

(ii) Petitioner No. 1 is having own business in New Delhi, his mother is



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top