Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 350 (UTT)

SANJEEV KUMAR GAGNEJA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-07-15

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. P.C.Pethshali, 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. The First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 which has been registered as Crime/FIR No. 329 of 2016 under Sections 323/504/506/498A of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station – Rudrapur, District- Udham Singh Nagar implicating the present petitioners. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have approached this Court for relief. 4. The First Information Report has been lodged by respondent no.3 against her husband and other in-laws. The marriage of the petitioner no. 1 – Sanjeev Kumar Gagneja was solemnized with respondent no.3 - Smt. Pooja Gagneja on 24.03.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. There are allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, torture, etc. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offences, an interference is being called for by this Court in the matter. 6. 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 Crime/FIR No. 329 of 2016 under Sections 323/504/506/498A of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station – Rudrapur, District- Udham Singh Nagar provided the petitioners cooperate in the investigation. 7. Issue notice to the respondent no.3. Steps to be taken within a week. 8. Respondents shall file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. 9. List this matter on 11.08.2016 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 (7146 of 2016) stands disposed.