Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Smt. Saroj Bala vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 June, 2012

Author: Prafulla C. Pant

Bench: Prafulla C. Pant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL
         Criminal Writ Petition No. 538 of 2012

  1.   Smt. Saroj Bala, W/o Sri Srikant Dhiman, R/o
       Village Manjheri, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur
       (U.P.).
  2.   Vikas Dhiman, S/o Sri Srikant Dhiman, R/o
       Village Manjheri, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur
       (U.P.).
  3.   Sri Kant Dhiman, S/o Parmanand Dhiman,
       Presently residing at Village Nara, District
       Muzaffarnagar (U.P.).

                                         .........Petitioners

                          Versus


  1- State of Uttarakhand, through S.S.P. Haridwar.
  2- Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali
     Jwalapur, District Haridwar.
  3- Smt. Neetu Dhiman, W/o Vikas Dhiman, D/o Roshan
     Lal Dhiman, R/o C-7, Shashtri Nagar Jwalapur, P.S.
     Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar.

                                         ......Respondents


Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate, present for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder, present for the State.
Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate, with Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate,
present for the respondent No.3.



Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Heard.

2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 02.06.2012, registered as Crime No. 178 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar.

3) The petitioner no.1 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is husband and petitioner No.3 is father-in-law of the complainant (respondent No.3). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.3 is Principal in a College in Nara, District Muzaffarnagar and lives there in rented accommodation. No specific role has been assigned to him (petitioner No.3) in the First Information Report.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has suffered as many as four injuries, recorded by the Medical Officer of Har Milap Mission District Hospital, Haridwar.

5)        Admit the petition.


6)         Learned counsel for the State, and learned

counsel for the complainant are allowed to file their counter affidavits within a period of four weeks.

7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the papers on record, as an interim measure, it is directed that petitioner No.3 Srikant Dhiman shall not be arrested in connection with the First Information Report dated 02.06.2012, registered as Crime No. 178 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, during investigation provided he cooperates with the investigating agency. However, as to the petitioner No.1 Smt. Saroj Bala and petitioner No.2 Vikas Dhiman it is directed that if they surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay Application No. 6002 of 2012, stands disposed of).

8)           List after four weeks.




                                      (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
20.06.2012
JM