Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/1845/2022 on 28 September, 2022

Author: S.K. Mishra

Bench: S.K. Mishra

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPCRL No. 1845 of 2022

                                 Hon'ble S.K. Mishra, J.

Mr. M.K.Ray, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

By filing a writ petition, the petitioners had prayed for the following relief:

" issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 07.09.2022, being FIR No. 119/2022, U/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged at P.S. Clement Town District Dehradun. ii. to direct the respondent no.2 to follow the mandatory guidelines as provided U/s 41A Cr.P.C."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties, and the matter should be referred for the purpose of the Mediation.

The learned counsel for the State would submit that in this case, the complainant has herself averred in the FIR that there was already a compromise between the parties.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent for quashing of the FIR only for referring the case to the Mediation when it is alleged that they did not cooperate in the other Mediation.

Having perused the contents of the FIR, it is clear that the prima facie case for offences under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has been made out, so there is no merit in the writ application as far as quashing of the FIR is concerned.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though, all the offences are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, the Investigating Officer, instead of following the provisions of Section 41-A of the Code, is threatening to arrest the petitioner for some ulterior motives.

The learned counsel for the State would submit that if any Police Officer flouts the rule of law and do not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41A of the Code and the lis decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, then he shall face appropriate contempt proceedings, and there is no need to issue the directions repeatedly.

In that view of the matter, the writ application is disposed of.

(S.K. Mishra, J.) 28.09.2022 (Grant certified copies as per Rules.) Nahid