Kalyani @ Deeksha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9479 of 2020

Petitioner :- Kalyani @ Deeksha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 10.06.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 498A, 506, 326 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Baragaon, District Varanasi with a further prayer not to arrest him in pursuance of the said first information report.

¶7

The allegation in the First Information Report is that the sister of the informant namely Chanda was married to Pradeep Kumar Singh about 8 years ago. The in-laws of her sister were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they often used to beat her on account of demand of more dowry. On 28.03.2020 at about 2.30 p.m., they poured kerosene oil and set his sister on fire. On hearing the cries of his sister, several neighbours came and saved her and took her first to the Pragya Hospital and later she was referred to Mandaliya Chikitsalaya, Shiv Prasad Gupta hospital, where her statement was also recorded by the City Magistrate. Later she was discharged from the hospital on 01.06.2020 but again admitted on 04.06.2020 where she died on 09.06.2020.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased Chanda and there is no specific allegation against them in the FIR even though they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that initially the petitioner no.2-Sangyani @ Vibha was not named in the array of accused in the impugned FIR and her name has been incorporated later on after the FIR was lodged as the same is hand written. Lastly it is submitted that both the petitioners were residing with their father at a separate place and they have no concern with the alleged incident. Further, it is submitted that the death certificate of the deceased mentions her cause of death as

¶9

Cardio Respiratory Arrest.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶11

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶12

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶13

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 5.10.2020

¶15

C. MANI

Kalyani @ Deeksha and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyani @ Deeksha and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antram Alias Anant Ram Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Puneet Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar @ Dharmendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhirendra Singh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chotu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others