Pameshwari Devi And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioners have challenged FIR No.4 of 2022, under Sections 304B, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

According to the FIR, the marriage of the deceased Kajal and Rinku was solemnized on 06.12.2022. But, after marriage, Rinku used to harass the

deceased. On 03.01.2022, she was killed by the petitioners and the husband of the deceased Rinku.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have no role in the matter. They are living separately. The FIR records that it

is the husband of the deceased who used to harass and did maarpeet with the deceased.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of offences, generally interference is not

warranted.

At this stage, this Court cannot assess the credibility or reliability or truthfulness of the version recorded in the FIR. A married woman died within

14 months of her marriage in her matrimonial house. There are specific allegations of harassment and beatings given to deceased. FIR says that it is

the petitioners also, who killed the deceased. It is up to the Investigating Officer, who shall investigate the truthfulness of the contents of the FIR.

Therefore, having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any

interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

When the order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners be given liberty to move an anticipatory bail

application.

The petitioners are always free to move such application. They do not need any liberty to move such application.