Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2838 (ALL)

Naseem v. State of U. P.

2015-09-10

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, V.K.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Smt. Naseem and five others are before us seeking quashing of the FIR dated 13.6.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 under Sections 498-A/323/376/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act at police station Behat, district Saharanpur. 2. We have the occasion to peruse the impugned FIR and as far as FIR goes it contains categorical recital of fact in reference of petitioner no. 3 Mohd. Riyaz @ Raju that he has subjected the informant to sexual encounter and coupled with this cruelty and demand of dowry is also there. Once such is the factual situation, that has been mentioned in the FIR, then certainly FIR cannot be quashed and investigation will have to be carried out and same will have to be come to its logical conclusion. 3. Petitioners' counsel next contended that as far as petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned they have been falsely implicated in the case whereas the marriage in question was a love marriage and, in view of this, to conceive of a situation that any demand of dowry or cruelty is there is too far fetched and till date no credible evidence has come forward that connect them with the commission of crime in question. 4. Consequently, in the facts of the case, as it has been contended before us that the marriage in question was a love marriage and till date there is no credible evidence available on record that connects the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (Smt. Naseem, Shahzad, Sagar, Bhoori @ Shabnam and Rizwan respectively) with the commission of crime in question, we proceed to pass an order that as the process of investigation is on, the process of investigation may be brought to its logical end but as far as petitioners are concerned, pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. dated 13.6.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 under Sections 498-A/323/376/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act at police station Behat, district Saharanpur, they may not be arrested till credible evidence is collected against them or submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, and petitioners shall extend full cooperation in the investigation and shall not interfere with the ongoing investigation and as far as petitioner no. 3 Mohd. 3 Mohd. Riyaz @ Raju s/o Naseem Ahmad is concerned, no relief or reprieve can be given to him by this Court. 5. With these observations/directions, writ petition is disposed of.