Uttarakhand High Court
Jeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 March, 2012
Author: Prafulla C. Pant
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 259 of 2012
with
Stay Application No. 2516 of 2012
1. Jeet Singh
S/o Late Shri Sher Singh
2. Smt Sheela
W/o Jeet Singh Indoria
3. Deepak Kumar
S/o Shri Jet Singh
All R/o Mohalla Janak Nagar
near Dehradun Chowk Saharanpur
P.S Janak Nagar, District Saharanpur (U.P)
............... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Uttarakhand,
through S.S.P.
Hardwar.
2. Station House Officer,
Police Station Jwalapur
District Hardwar
3. Smt Sita
W/o Shri Deepak Kumar Indoria
D/o Shri Dharmvir
R/o Shanti Vihar Colony
Arya Nagar Jwalapur
District Haridwar.
..............Respondents.
2
Shri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate, present for the petitioners.
Shri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State.
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 25.01.2012, registered as Crime No. 38 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 313 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is father in law, petitioner no.2 is mother in law, petitioner no.3 is husband of the complainant (respondent no.3). Marriage is said to have taken place on 11th of October 2010. Some serious allegations of cruelty are made in the First Information 3 Report, particularly, against the mother in law and the husband. However, as against the father in law allegations appear to be vague and general in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated due to the matrimonial discord between the respondent no.3 (complainant) and her husband. It is further contended that F.I.R. in question is the counter blast to the petition filed under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the husband.
(4) Admit the petition.
(5) Learned counsel for the State prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.
(6) Issue notice to respondent no.3 Smt. Sita, who may file her counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.
(7) Having considered submissions of learned 4 counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the State, as an interim measure, it is directed that petitioner no.1 Jeet Singh (father in law) shall not be arrested in connection with aforesaid Crime No. 38 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 313 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar, during investigation, provided he cooperates with the investigating agency. As to the petitioner no.2 Smt Sheela (mother in law), and petitioner no.3 Deepak Kumar (husband), 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. 2516 of 2012, stands disposed of).
(8) List after six weeks.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.29.03.2012 NP