Mohd. Jabir & others. vs State of Uttarakhand & others.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the F.I.R. dated 06.07.2017, registered as Case Crime No.336 of 2017, under Section 495, 417, 498, 323, 504 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar.

Allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that the petitioners demanded dowry from the respondent no. 3. It is also stated in the impugned F.I.R. that the petitioners assaulted the respondent no. 3 and her family members, due to which, the respondent no. 3 and her mother suffered severe injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the matter. He submitted that, in fact, respondent no. 3 could not adjust herself in the matrimonial family and started creating pressure upon the petitioner no. 1 to live separately and to take share of property and when

petitioner no. 1 did not fulfill her demand, the respondent no. 3 left the matrimonial house and levelled false allegations against the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

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.

I find that contents of F.I.R. clearly disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case. It is not a fit case, where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the fact that petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.4 is

married sister-in-law, petitioner no. 5 is husband of petitioner no. 4 and is living separately, it is directed that in case petitioner nos. 2, 4 & 5 moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day.

Stay application (CLMA No. 8271 of 2017) stands rejected.