Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 344 (UTT)

SUNITA @ SURESHO DEVI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-07-14

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for the petitioners. 2. Mr. A.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. 3. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3. 4. The First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 156 of 2016 under Sections 363/366A of IPC, at Police Station- Kotwali, Dehradun, District- Dehradun against the present petitioners. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have approached this Court for relief. 5. The First Information Report has been lodged by complainant/respondent no.3 stating that one Deepak Chauhan, who is the son of petitioner no. 1 and grandson of petitioner no. 2, had kidnapped his daughter with instigation and affective support of the present petitioners. The victim/girl as of now is presently with her parents. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 3 submits that boy, namely, Deepak Chauhan, was arrested on 09.07.2016 and presently is in jail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that present petitioners are women, subject to the full-cooperation of the petitioners in the investigation, an interference is being called for by this Court in the matter. 7. As an interim measure, it is provided that though the investigation may go on but till the next date of listing, no coercive measures shall be taken against them in pursuance of Case Crime No. 156 of 2016 under Sections 363/366A of IPC, at Police Station- Kotwali, Dehradun, District-Dehradun provided the petitioners cooperate in the investigation. 8. Respondents shall file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. 9. List this matter on 10.08.2016 in the daily cause list. 10. However, it is made clear that the above relief is subject to the cooperation of the petitioners in the investigation. In case, the petitioners do not cooperate in the investigation, it will be the duty of the respondents to bring this fact to the notice of this Court so that appropriate orders be passed. 11. Stay application (7089 of 2016) stands disposed.