Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary, JJ.
Sheoraj Singh And 5 Others – Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 2 Others - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 17665 of 2020
Decided On : 21-1-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B, 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 155, 156, 482, 438, 437, 439 – Dowry Prohibition Act – Sections 3, 4 – Quashing FIR - Respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime, under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. –
Finding of the court: – The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. – In view of the material on record no case of inteference is made out and the impugned criminal proceeding cannot be said to be manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal venonmous agenda. F.I.R. or criminal proceedings can be quashed only according to the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of its judgement. – If the petitioners appears before the court below seeking their liberty by way of application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and or 437 read with 439 Cr.P.C., the same shall be decided immidiately as at this stage role of each of the accused is not borne out. – The petitioners are not relevant who are not stationed at the same place when the offence took place. – In that view of the matter, court direct the petitioners to move the court below for to be enlarged on bail. – None of the observations are for grant or refuse of bail but are under the realm of writ jurisdiction. – Court refuse to intertain the petition as court is not hundred percent sure as what is the role genesis from each of the accused and therefore, court is restraining ourselves from entertaining this petition at this stage as we do not think at this stage that the prosecution can be nibbed in its inception. – Court is of the opinion that present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned F.I.R. – Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner(s)
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Petitioners have made the following prayers:
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime no. 0626 of 2020, under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ghandhi Park, District Aligarh.
(iii) Any other or further writ, order or direction as is deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.
Facts in nutshell for our puposes are that daughter of the first informnat had married Pushpendra Singh. The daughter of the first informant on 2.8.2020 gave birth a girl child at Jaideep Nursing Home, which was now creator of the problem between the parties. It is a matter of fact that after delivery when the deceased was shifted to Varun Hospital, she died. The respondent no. 3 preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was registered as Application No. 256/11/20 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. The court of C.J.M., Aligarh directed the concerned police station to submit a report on the said complaint. The police station submitted a report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate along with death certificate issued by the hospital. Unfotunately, death of the Vimlesh was projected as death for dowry and all six petitioners were arrayed as accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the reports issued by the hospital and the report of the police but the first informant was bent on seeing all accused to be prosecuted.
Going through the factual scenario and as the investigation is on and the death is occurred during seven years of the marriage, at this stage, we would be loath in interfering with the investigation.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that entire allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners are false and baseless and the petitioners have been falsely implicated only for the purpose of harrassment. Brief allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are that the daughter of the first informant Vimlesh married to Pushpendra Singh on 16.11.2016 in which nearly Rs. 12 lakhs were spend by him but the family of the husband was not happy and kept demanding for dowry and a Car. A girl child was born out of the wedlock within one year of the marriage and thereafter the daughter of the first informant was expecting another child in the month of August, 2020. Learned A.G.A. further contended that the inlaws threatened the daughter of the first informant that if she will give birth to another girl child then they will get her kill during the delivery of the child. Learned A.G.A. further contended that on 2.8.2020 the daughter of first informant gave birth to a girl child at Jaideep Nursing Home Aligarh and as soon as the girl child was born, the petitioners went in to meet the doctor and suddenly the wife of first informant who was also present in the nursing home during the delivery heard her daughter, Vimlesh, now deceased, shouting in pain.
It has been argued that the petitioners have not committed any offence and prima facie no case is made out against them and hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impunged F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
It has been well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases while quashing a complaint, F.I.R. or a chargesheet and Courts should not interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences as a matter of routine . On the contrary, if no prima facie case is made out from the th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
