Uttarakhand High Court
Suresh Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 March, 2012
Author: Prafulla C. Pant
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 209 of 2012
with
Stay Application No. 1913 of 2012
1. Suresh Chand
S/o Phool Singh
2. Smt. Rajdulari
W/o Suresh Chand
3. Jitender Kumar
S/o Suresh Chand
4. Harvindra
S/o Suresh Chand
5. Km Reena
D/o Suresh Chand
All R/o Village Simli Laksar
P.S. Laksar, District Hardwar
............... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Uttarakhand,
through Senior Superintendent
of Police
District Hardwar
2. Station Officer,
Police Station Jawalapur
District Hardwar
3. Sangeeta
W/o Mukesh Chand
R/o Ambedkar Nagar
Jwalapur, District Hardwar
..............Respondents.
Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Shri S.S.Adhikari, A.G.A. present for the State.
Shri S.K.Shandilya, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3
Sangeeta
2
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
(2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report registered as Crime No. 80 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is father in law, petitioner no.2 is mother in law, petitioner 3 and petitioner no.4 are brothers in law, and petitioner no.5 is sister in law of the complainant (respondent no.3). It is further submitted that petitioner no.3 lives in Gurgaon. Petitioner no.4 lives in Delhi, and petitioner no.5 lives in Laksar. It is further 3 pleaded that respondent no.3 used to live with her husband in Dehradun. It is contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the present petitioners due to the matrimonial discord between the respondent no.3 and her husband Mukesh.
(4) Admit the petition.
(5) Learned counsel for the state prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.
(6) Shri S. K.Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Sangeeta, also prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.
(7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the state, and after going through the papers on record, as an interim measure, it is directed that petitioners namely Suresh Chand, Smt. Rajdulari, Jitender Kumar, Harvindra and Km 4 Reena, shall not be arrested in connection with aforesaid Crime No. 80 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar, during investigation, provided they cooperate with the investigating agency. (Stay Application No. 1913 of 2012 stands disposed of).
(8) List after six weeks.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.15.03.2012 NP