Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri Devesh Bishnoi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2070 of 2022
Shahanavaz
and others. ................Petitioners.
Through: Shri Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel
holding brief of Shri Rajbeer Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioners.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .........Respondents.
Through: Shri J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
General with Shri Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
Date of Hearing & Order : 08.12.2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
the relief:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari to quash the impugned FIR bearing
registration no. 1264 of 2022 registered on
03.11.2022 at police station Mangalaur, District
Haridwar, under Section 498A, 506, 354, 376 (2)
(N) and 376 IPC.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2
not to arrest the petitioners during the period of
investigation in impugned FIR bearing registration
no. 1264 of 2022 registered on 03.11.2022 at police
station Mangalaur, District Haridwar, under
Section 498A, 506, 354, 376 (2) (N) and 376 IPC."
2. It is not disputed that respondent no. 3 happens to be the
wife of petitioner no. 1. She alleges that she has been tortured for
dowry, her modesty has been outraged, she has been threatened
by the petitioners and there is also allegation that her father-in
law and brothers-in-law had committed sexual intercourse with
her, leading to file an FIR under Section 376 (2) (N) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. Moreover, there is allegation that in the year
2021, she has been raped by Naushad Khan, Shahbaz Khan,
Yunus Khan, Shahnazar and after three days, when her husband
returned home, she narrated her plight to him that her father-in-
law and others had committed rape upon her but instead of
attending her complaint, petitioner no. 1/ husband reprimand
and intimated her and did unnatural sex with her, which is
punishable under Section 377 IPC. It is also borne out from the
records that petitioner no. 1 has prepared an objectionable video
of the complainant / respondent no. 3 and threatened her to
expose the same.
3. In that view of the matter, the initial argument advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been no
specific allegation in the FIR regarding the commission of the
offences under Section 377, 354, 376 (2) (N) and 376 IPC stands
nullified, on perusal of the statement of victim recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, copy whereof
is produced in the Court today.
4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that
learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to make out a case
for quashing of FIR in view of the fact that complainant /
respondent no. 3 has made serious allegations against the
petitioners that requires investigation.
5. This Court is of the firm opinion that there is no merit in the
writ petition. Moreover, further taking into consideration the
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s
Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra and
others (2021) SCC Online SC 315 that investigating agency has a
right and duty to investigate the case when prima facie case is
made out, as per contents of the FIR and in view of the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335 quashing of
the FIR should not be resorted to in a routine manner and only in
rare and exceptional cases, FIR should be quashed, we are of the
firm opinion that no interference is required in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merits.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
(Grant urgent certified copy of this judgment, as per Rules)
SKS
