NIKHIL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the First Information Report dated 09.07.2017 in Case Crime No.165 of 2017, under sections 386, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Dalanwala District Dehradun. Further prayer has been made commanding the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner Case Crime No.165 of 2017 under Sections 386, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Dalanwala District Dehradun till the pendency of present petition.

(2.) An FIR was registered against the petitioner with the allegation that on 09.07.2017 at about 09:30 p.m. complainant was returning from Hathibarkala New Cantt. Road, 77/3 Rajpur Road to his house, then at Rispana Bridge the petitioner and co-accused Sumit Agarwal and Amit Agarwal forcibly stopped the complainant and started abusing, assaulted him and threatened for dire consequences. It is stated in the FIR that petitioner has illicit relation with the wife of the complainant and the complainant had caught them red handed. It is stated that the complainant has given the recording of conversation between the petitioner and Neha-wife of the complainant, C.D. and Pen Drive to Police. In the said conversation they were talking about their physical relationship and made conspiracy of running away from home by taking jewellery and money.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been made scapegoat in the matter. The allegations of illicit relation are totally false. He submits that complainant and his parents were torturing Neha for want of dowry and petitioner being the cousin of respondent no.3 took side of Neha. He submits that at the time of the incident petitioner was present in the house and story is false one. He submits that petitioner has not met the co-accused Sumit and Amit about one and half year, therefore, question of committing offence does not arise. He also submits that there is no independent witness of the incident and no injury is caused to anyone. He further submits that in such circumstances FIR should be quashed.