Uttarakhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar Sati And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 March, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 454
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2108 of 2017
Sandeep Kumar Sati & others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents
Mr. Susheel Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pramod Chandra Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Dated: 06.03.2018
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
On 02.01.2018, interim protection was granted to the petitioners by the Court by considering the fact that the matter is a matrimonial discord and there were chances of reconciliation in the matter.
2. Today, when it was asked to counsel for the parties whether they are ready for mediation, no positive reply was given. Thereafter, the Court proceeded further to hear the matter.
3. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:-
"i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 15.11.2017 which was registered as Case crime no. 426 of 2017 at Kotwali, rishikesh District-Dehradun u/s 323, 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners."
4. On 15.11.2017, an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners by the complainant, alleging therein that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner no. 1, as per Hindu 2 rites and rituals on 22.04.2014. The parents of the complainant gave gold ornaments and other household items to the petitioner no. 1 at the time of the marriage. Thereafter, petitioners demanded more money from the complainant. When the petitioners' demand of Motorcycle and Rs. 5 lakhs were not fulfilled by the family of the complainant, petitioners became annoyed with the complainant and assaulted her. When the respondent no. 3 did not fulfill the demand of the petitioners', they ousted her from their house. It is also stated that, at that time, the complainant was pregnant. Thereafter, out of the wedlock, a girl child was born. Thereafter, complainant went to his matrimonial house, where the petitioners' again assaulted her. When the daughter of the complainant fell ill, the complainant asked money from the petitioner no. 1 for the treatment of their daughter; but the petitioner no. 1 denied the same and told her that he has no money for the treatment of the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, petitioners again assaulted her. When complainant told about this incident to her father on phone then her father came to his matrimonial house to settle the matter. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 abused the father of the complainant. It is alleged that on 08.06.2016 at 10:00 a.m. the petitioners forced her to leave their house.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under 3 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate 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.
6. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order dated 02.01.2018 stands vacated.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 06.03.2018 Navin