Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1829/2022 on 23 September, 2022
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPCRL No. 1829 of 2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State.
By filing this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Impugned First Information Report dated 15.08.2022 being FIR No. 0448 of 2022, lodged under Section 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at PS Jwalapur, District Haridwar (Contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the Impugned First Information Report dated 15.08.2022 being FIR No. 0448 of 2022 lodged under Section 498-
A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at PS Jwalapur, District Haridwar, during the pendency of present writ petition."
A reading of the FIR reveals that the specific allegation of dowry demand and torture, assault and criminal intimidation, are made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in course of hearing could not make out a case of quashing of the FIR, prima facie.
In a writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of the FIR, the Court's duties is limited to the extent that it should be considered only if the allegations made in the FIR does not make out a prima facie case.
In this case, admittedly, a prima facie case is made out. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would make a alternative prayer of directing the respondents, especially, the Inspector Kotwali, PS Jwalapur, District Haridwar (respondent no. 3) to comply with the provisions of Section 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273. On this aspect, the learned Assistant Government Advocate would submit that the Police in Uttarakhand are following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is no need to pass repeated orders. She further submitted that in any case, if the Investigating Officer violates the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he will be liable for contempt.
In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 23.09.2022 AK