The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, and the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned First Information Report No.66 of 2022, registered with Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun for the offence under Sections 120B, 323, 380, 342, 420, 441, 467, 468, 471, 506 of I.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the State requested time to file counter affidavit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the said submission and requested to decide the present matter today itself.

4. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

5. The impugned First Information Report has been registered on 28.01.2022 after the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, on the application, filed by the informant under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. According to the F.I.R., Mr. Ashok Kumar, the husband of the informant Smt. Anjana Rani, the respondent no.4, died on 23.07.2021 at Max Hospital, Dehradun. The informant, aged about 55 years, has no children. The present petitioner–accused is the wife of coaccused Sahil alias Manoj. Sahil alias Manoj is the son of Arun Kumar, co-accused. The co-accused Arun Kumar is the brother of the husband of the informant. The informant, after the death of the husband, is the sole owner of the husband’s property. The petitioner–accused and the co-accused persons want to usurp the property of her husband. On 22.10.2021, at around 5 p.m., all the accused persons locked her inside the house and kept a man named Sagar as guard at the door from 26.10.2021. Meanwhile, a fake succession certificate was prepared by the present petitioner’s husband calling himself the son of the informant and her husband, and, on the basis of the said fake succession certificate, a car, a motor-cycle and a scooter of the informant’s deceased husband were taken. All these vehicles are in the possession of the present petitioner–accused and co-accused persons. The parents of the petitioner threaten her. All the accused persons put their lock on her house. After the death of her husband, lakhs of rupees were also withdrawn from her husband’s bank accounts. The informant has a shop in front of the Police Chauki, located on Kawali Road, on which, the accused persons are continuously threatening to take possession.

7. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a house wife and she has been falsely implicated in this matter; the F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly and there is no explanation of the delay; no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R.; the present dispute is a family dispute.

8. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the co-accused Sahil alias Manoj and he (Sahil alias Manoj) is the adopted son of the informant. He (Sahil alias Manoj) was adopted by the informant’s husband. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that no adoption deed is available.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the writ petition orally and submitted that instructions have been received from the Investigating Officer and according to the Investigating Officer, the investigation is still in progress and during the course of the investigation, evidence has been produced to the effect that the present petitioner was involved in the criminal conspiracy.

10. In Pepsi Food Limited vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (36) ACC 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits, but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

11. In State of