Uttarakhand High Court
Suman Devi And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 July, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1178 of 2017
Suman Devi & others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 25.07.2017
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 17.07.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 135 of 2017 under Section 304-B, 201, 34 IPC PS Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 135 of 2017 under Section 304-B, 201, 34 IPC PS Piran Kaliyar District Haridwar till the pendency of present petition."
2. Allegation against the petitioners is that they harassed the daughter of the complainant for dowry and killed her with common intention and for concealing the evidence burned her dead body. On 17.07.2017, an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners, alleging therein, that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the petitioner no. 2 on 10.02.2013. In the marriage, he incurred much money, which was more than his 2 status. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the in-laws of her daughter harassed her for dowry. On 16.07.2017, one person, namely, Ajay Kumar, who is brother-in-law of the complainant in relation, informed him at about 09:15 p.m. in the night that the petitioners killed her daughter and went for her cremation. On information, complainant along with Gram Pradhan and other villagers reached the Village and found that by that time cremation was over. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioners harassed her daughter for dowry and on 16.07.2017 they killed her daughter and for concealing the evidence, without informing the complainant, burnt her dead body.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He further submitted that no complaint or F.I.R. had ever been lodged by the deceased or respondent no. 3 prior to the death of the deceased, which proves that there was no dispute between the spouse and they were living happy married life and natural death of the deceased has been given a criminal colour. It is also submitted that the at the time of cremation various villagers were present, who were aware that the deceased has been died due to her ailment.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. disclose 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. It is for the Investigating 3 Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. 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 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.
5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [Stay application CLMA No. 8870 of 2017 also stands dismissed].
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a lady. Considering this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is provided that if the petitioner no. 1 surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail, bail application of petitioner no. 1 shall be heard and decided, in accordance with law, very very expeditiously.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 25.07.2017 Navin