Furkan and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Smt. Furkani

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.

By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 208 of 2009, State v. Furkan and Ors., relating to offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 498-A I.P.C., and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that petitioner No. 1 is husband, petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 are brothers in law (JETH), petitioner No. 4, petitioner No. 5 and petitioner No. 6 are sisters-in-law (JETHANI) of the complainant. It is pleaded that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioners. It is pointed out that in the first information report even Abdul Rehman (father-in-law) has also been named in the first information report lodged in 2009, while he had already died way back in the year 1998. It is contended that it is clear case of abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate her husband and all the relatives in the name of dowry harassment.

One more fact is brought to the notice of this Court that, infact, one first information report was earlier lodged by petitioner No. 1 Furkan against brothers of his wife for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s 304 I.P.C., after death of his mother Sagari. It is submitted that the first information report lodged by the complainant Furkani is counter blast to the first information report lodged by petitioner No. 1 Furkan.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in respect of an incident, which has taken place in Paunta Sahib (State of Himachal Pradesh) the courts of District Dehradun, have no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

Admit the petition.

Issue notices to respondent No. 2 Furkani, who may file her counter affidavit within a period of six weeks. Learned Counsel for the State may also file his counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.

Meanwhile, in the above circumstances, as an interim measure, it is directed that the proceedings of criminal case No. 208 of 2009, State v. Furkan and Ors., relating to offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 498-A I.P.C., and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, are stayed until further orders of this Court.

List after six weeks.