Allahabad High Court
Rishabh Kishore And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 612 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rishabh Kishore And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh,Kushagra Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Girish Kumar Pandey,Sumesh Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This Court by earlier order dated 07.02.2023 has sent parties for Mediation as there was hope of amicable settlement outside Court as the dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature. The Mediation Centre has sent its report on 25.4.2023 saying that the mediation has failed.
This Court taking into account the fact that mediation has failed and also the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time that the respondents no.5 is being instigated by her parents to make false allegations against the petitioners, had asked the Investigating officer to ensure the presence of the respondent no.5 before this Court by its order dated 27.4.2023. Today the Investigating officer has come along with the respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also ensured the presence of petitioner no.1 before us.
This Court tried to reason with the respondent no.5 and also tried to find out as to why she is making such allegations against her husband and in laws.
The respondent no.5 was on the verge of tears and she stated that just after three months of marriage the behaviour of petitioner no.1 and his parents and sister changed towards the respondent no.5 and the petitioner no.1 started threatening her with divorce in case her parents did not fulfil the monetary demands as made by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that there are no specific allegations made against the in laws of the respondent no.5 in the FIR and has placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Kakhashan Kausar alias Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 (6) SCC page 599 wherein it has been submitted that the Supreme Court has quashed the FIR on the ground that in the absence of specific and distinct allegations the FIR could not be allowed to continue against the in laws.
This Court has perused the judgment as cited before us and finds that the FIR was lodged as criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by the respondent against her husband and appellants alleging demand for dowry and harassment. The appellants being niece (respondent no.1), mother in law (respondent no.2), sister in law (respondent no.3) and brother in law (respondent no.4) before the Supreme Court. The Court after considering the contentions as raised by the appellants and of the respondents no.5, the complainant-wife found from the facts of the case that the allegations against the appellant in laws were general and omnibus allegations and, therefore, liable to be quashed.
This Court has perused the FIR lodged by the father of the respondent no.5 and from the same it is evident that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner no.1 i.e. the husband of respondent no.5 and his mother, his sister and brother in law of demanding of Rs.50,00000/- for construction of house on a plot that was recorded in the name of sister in law Riya. House was got constructed by the respondent no.4 so that some peace would result in the strained relationship but even after they shifted in the house that was duly constructed by the respondent no.4, the petitioner no.1 along with his mother, his sister and brother in law continued to demand more dowry for establishment of a Nursing Home.
The incidents that have been mentioned in the impugned FIR have occurred within ten months of the marriage which shows that the petitioner no.1 was under complete control and influence of his mother and sister and brother in law. Respondent no.4 moreover has given a huge amount of dowry including a Mercedes Car to the petitioner no.1 at the time of wedding. No father would have gone to such an extent in giving such a huge dowry to ensure the matrimonial happiness of his daughter and then try to falsely implicate the son in law and his family unless there was a genuine cause of complaint.
After having examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned FIR, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR, discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for quashing of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
mks
