Pameshwari Devi And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 241 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

        Criminal Writ Petition No. 228 of 2022


Pameshwari Devi and another                       ...Petitioners

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                  ...Respondents


Present:-
            Mr. Mohit Kumar and Ms. Meenu, Advocates for the
            petitioners.
            Mr. V.S. Rathour, A.G.A. for the State.


                           Judgment


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have challenged FIR No.4 of

2022, under Sections 304B, Police Station Jaspur,

District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. According to the FIR, the marriage of the

deceased Kajal and Rinku was solemnized on

06.12.2022. But, after marriage, Rinku used to harass

the deceased. On 03.01.2022, she was killed by the

petitioners and the husband of the deceased Rinku.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties

through video conferencing and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners have no role in the matter.

They are living separately. The FIR records that it is the

husband of the deceased who used to harass and did

maarpeet with the deceased.

5. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally interference is not warranted.

6. At this stage, this Court cannot assess the

credibility or reliability or truthfulness of the version

recorded in the FIR. A married woman died within 14

months of her marriage in her matrimonial house.

There are specific allegations of harassment and

beatings given to deceased. FIR says that it is the

petitioners also, who killed the deceased. It is up to the

Investigating Officer, who shall investigate the

truthfulness of the contents of the FIR.

7. Therefore, having considered the entirety of

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

view that there is no reason to make any interference

and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

9. When the order was dictated, learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners be

given liberty to move an anticipatory bail application.

10. The petitioners are always free to move such

application. They do not need any liberty to move such

application.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 09.02.2022 Sanjay