Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 344 (UTT)

Dev Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-09-10

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner Dev Kumar seeks quashing of an FIR No. 201 of 2020 under Sections 377 IPC and under Section 5/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act'), Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to the FIR, the informant who is respondent no.3 in this case and petitioner were engaged on 20.04.2018 and many articles were given at the time of engagement. After engagement, the petitioner established physical relations with the informant and in fact, he had intercourse with her against the order of the nature also. Marriage was fixed, cards were distributed. On 19.02.2020, when parents of the informant visited the house of petitioner, the petitioner and his family members demanded a Swift Car and Rs. 5 Lakhs in dowry. They abused and expelled the parents of informant from their house. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially in the year 2018, both, petitioner and informant were minor; they were engaged; it may be, at the most, a case of dowry demand, but, not a case under IPC or under the Act. It is also argued that FIR in itself is self-contradictory because, according to it, the last incident of demand of dowry was made on 19.02.2020, whereas, according to FIR, the father of the informant had reported the matter on 20th and 22nd January, 2020. It is argued that if the incident happened on 19.02.2020, how could a report be filed in the month of January. 5. On behalf of the State, it is argued that perhaps there is some typographical errors in the FIR. 6. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of an FIR. The FIR narrates the incident which led to filing of the FIR. Engagement, exchange of gifts at the engagement, preparation of the marriage, distribution of the marriage invitation cards and thereafter demand of dowry and before that, after engagement, physical relations having been established by the petitioner with the informant, also against the order of nature. 7. What is truthfulness of all these allegations, cannot be assessed here, in this proceeding. Engagement, exchange of gifts at the engagement, preparation of the marriage, distribution of the marriage invitation cards and thereafter demand of dowry and before that, after engagement, physical relations having been established by the petitioner with the informant, also against the order of nature. 7. What is truthfulness of all these allegations, cannot be assessed here, in this proceeding. Apparently, there appears to be some mistakes about dates in the FIR because the demand of dowry was allegedly made on 19.02.2020 and it may not be possible that a person would file a report in advance in the month of January, but, that also falls for consideration during investigation. There is no reason for this Court to make any interference in this case and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner. 9. Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case. 10. With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.