The court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR but directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, provided they cooperate with the investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11087 of 2020
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 13.02.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0162 of 2020, under Sections 328, 376, 354 (A), 330, 307 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the allegations made in the impugned first information report as crafted may disclose commission of cognizable offences but from the allegations itself two things become clear. One, that the informant was a married lady whose case for divorce with her previous husband was pending in the Family Court, Kadkadduma, New Delhi. Second, that she was in a relationship with coaccused Amit Kumar Dwivedi (non-petitioner) since the year 2017. The thrust of the allegation is that co-accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi had been exploiting her whereas the other family members of Amit Kumar Dwivedi had also taken advantage of her though sexual exploitation is not specifically alleged.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that coaccused Amit Kumar Dwivedi is the son of petitioner no.1 and since he had relationship with a married woman, the family members of Amit Kumar Dwivedi did not approve of the relationship.
It has been submitted that from the allegations itself it appears that the victim had shifted her place and, since July, 2019, she had no contact with the petitioners though she maintained contact with co-accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi. Thus, the allegations that the other accused, namely, the petitioners, had been stalking her while she visited parlour from society are nothing but false. It has been submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged with a view to coerce co-accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi to formalize his relationship with the victim and in that process the entire family of co-accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi has been implicated.
It has been submitted that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable from the main accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi who is not before the court.
As correctness of the allegations would have to be determined on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation and the evidence led in trial, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.
However, considering the nature of the allegations as against the petitioners as also that the thrust of the allegations is against co-accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi, while keeping in mind that the victim being a married lady was in a relationship with co-accused Amit Kumar Dwivedi and that the said relationship might not be acceptable to the family members, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition by providing that the investigation of the above case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners, namely, Pramod Kumar Dwivedi; Madhuri Devi; Aditya Dwivedi and Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Raju Dwivedi shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC, provided they co-operate in the investigation.
Order Date :- 21.10.2020. Rks.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report against the petitioners should be quashed given the allegations primarily target a specific co-accused.
Whether the petitioners can be granted protection from arrest pending the submission of the police report.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Pramod Kumar Dwivedi And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Manoj Misra
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
