Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Smt. Kusumlata @ Meghna Dwivedi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 November, 2012

Author: Prafulla C. Pant

Bench: Prafulla C. Pant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL
         Criminal Writ Petition No.1105 of 2012

  1.   Smt. Kusumlata @ Meghna Dwivedi, W/o Sri
       K.S. Dwivedi (divorcee of Sri Raghuveer) R/o
       25, Rajendra Nagar, Street No.3, Kaulagarh,
       Dehradun, District Dehradun.
  2.   Vijan Veer Singh S/o Sri Raghuveer Singh,
       R/o 25, Rajendra Nagar, Street No. 3,
       Kaulagarh, Dehradun, District Dehradun.


                                       .........Petitioners


                         Versus

  1.   State of Uttarakhand, through its Principal
       Secretary (Home), Dehradun, District Dehradun.
  2.   Station House Officer, Police Station Cantt. Sub
       District-Sadar, District Dehradun.
  3.   Smt. Punam Chauhan, W/o Sri Yashveer Singh,
       R/o 21/22, Old Survey Road, Dehradun.
  4.   Dinesh Agarwal, S/o Sri Chunni Lal, R/o Maliyan
       Mohalla, Dehradun.
  5.   Lekhraj Singh, S/o Sri Raisingh, R/o 27 Keshav
       Road, Dehradun.

                                       ......Respondents



Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, with Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal,
Advocate, present for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Kapri, 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 01.12.2011, registered as Crime No. 180 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., at Police Station Cantt., District Dehradun.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a civil dispute between the family members of the petitioners. Complainant is daughter-in- law of the petitioner No.1. It is pointed out that the property dispute between the parties got settled, after the First Appeal No. 80 of 2009, was disposed of by this Court in terms of the compromise between the parties. It is contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent No.3 Punam Chauhan to implicate the petitioners in a criminal case disowning the compromise entered between the parties. Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, which is a copy of the order dated 25.10.2010, passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 80 of 2009 and the copy of order dated 25.10.2010, passed in First Appeal No. 81 of 2009 which is annexure No.7 to the writ petition.

4)        Admit the petition.
                                 3




5)           Learned counsel for the State prays for and is

allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.

6) Issue notice to the respondent No.3 Smt. Punam Chauhan, who may also file her counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.

7) Having heard 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 petitioners namely Smt. Kusumlata @ Meghna Dwivedi and Vijan Veer Singh shall not be arrested in connection with the First Information Report dated 01.12.2011, registered as Crime No. 180 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., at Police Station Cantt., District Dehradun, during investigation, provided they cooperate with the investigating agency (Interim Relief Application No. 12523 of 2012, stands disposed of).

8)           List after six weeks.




                                     (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
22.11.2012
JM