Uttarakhand High Court
Pawan Taneja vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 June, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 810 of 2017
Pawan Tanjeja .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pratiroop Pande, A.G.A. with Ms. Geeta Parihar, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Dated:19.06.2017
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure-1) lodged by the respondent no. 4 at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar in offences punishable U/s 304-B I.P.C.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/ commanding the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 not to arrest the petitioner till the pendency of the present writ petition."
2. On 12.05.2017, an F.I.R. was registered by the respondent no.4 against the petitioner and his son at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar alleging therein that his real sister Nupur was married to Mr. Harish Taneja, son of the petitioner on 04.12.2016. After some time of the marriage, petitioner and his son demanded dowry of Rs. 10 lacs from the respondent no. 4. When the demand was not fulfilled, petitioner and his son 2 started torture and misbehave with the sister of the respondent no. 4. Ultimately, on 12.05.2017 at about 06:00 a.m. sister of the respondent no. 4 committed suicide through jumping herself in Gangnahar near Singhdwar, Jwalapur, Haridwar and her dead body was recovered from the river Gangnahar on the same day.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is father-in-law of the victim and no active role has been assigned by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a case of suicide and not a case of dowry death because the victim has committed suicide through jumping herself in the Gangnahar where she died, therefore, in such circumstances, a case punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of the F.I.R. prima facie disclose the commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the side have different version, which cannot be looked into the writ petition. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will 3 not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.
6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seek bail, his bail application shall be heard and decided, very expeditiously in accordance with law. [Stay application CLMA No. 5845 of 2017 also stands dismissed].
(V.K. Bist, J.) 19.06.2017 Navin