Bishani Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 349 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (Crl.) No.294 of 2021

Bishani Devi                                              ....... Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                        .......Respondents
Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rohit Dhyani, Brief Holder
for the State.

                               Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(oral)

             The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the

impugned FIR No.8 of 2021 dated 02.02.2021, under Section 304-B

of IPC, registered at P.S. Mallital, Nainital, District-Nainital and a

mandamus commanding the respondents no.1 & 2 not to arrest the

petitioner in connection with the impugned FIR.

2.           Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.           Facts

necessary for disposal of this petition, briefly

stated, are as hereunder:-

According to the FIR, the sister of respondent no.3, who

is the informant, was married to Deep Sharma, who happens to be son

of the petitioner. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioner

and other family members started harassing the victim for the demand

of dowry. She was beaten up and finally on 02.02.2021 she was

killed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is an old aged woman; she is mother-in-law; she can even

not attend the Courts; she is dependent on others for her daily routine

work also. It is also argued that some distant relatives were also

named in the FIR, who have been provided protection in WPCRL No.

272 of 2021 (Annexure-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that the allegations are general in nature and the petitioner

and other family members had taken the victim to hospital.

5. It's a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. If, FIR discloses commission of any offences, interference is

not warranted. Instant is a case of dowry death, the victim was

married on 28.02.2017 and according to the FIR, she was killed on

02.02.2021. Just within 4 years of her marriage the victim died. What

is the role of each of the persons named in the FIR, it is subject matter

that may be examined during investigation. As stated in the instant

case, the FIR discloses commission of heinous offence. Therefore,

this Court of the view that there is no reason to make any interference

and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that

a direction may be issued and the petitioner may not be arrested in a

routine and mechanical manner.

7. 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.

8. With the above observations, the instant writ petition is

dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 16.02.2021

BS/SS