SEEMA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 12.06.2014 registered at Case Crime No. 116 of 2014 under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 323, 504,506, 420 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Manda district, Allahabad.

(2.) IT is not disputed that Smt. Anju D/o the first informant -Ramesh Chandra Pandey was married to Rohit Kumar Shukla on 6.6.2014. In the first information report, it is mentioned that Rohit Kumar Shukla was wrongly said to be a Software Engineer while, he was simply B.Com and was working as Accountant in private Firm. It is also stated that there was demand of Swift Dzire Car and due to non fulfillment, she was threatened to be killed. It is also not disputed that Anju died on 28.7.2014 during treatment. It is also alleged in the first information report that the petitioner who is Mausia saas of the deceased had given water to the deceased by mixing Sindoor in it. The first information report has been lodged by the father of deceased -Ramesh Chandra Pandey against 7 persons including the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No particular role has been assigned to her. Only this much is alleged in the first information report that she had given Sindoor mixed water to the deceased, but the post mortem report does not support this version as cause of death is septicemia due to burn injuries. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not going to be benefited in any way, even if demand of dowry would have been fulfilled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision given in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another .Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 10 SCC 741. On these grounds first information report is prayed to be quashed.