GURUMUKH BHOJWANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Gurumukh Bhojwani, Smt. Meera Bhojwani, Harish Bhojwani, Miss Shweta Bhojwani and Dr. Jyoti Bhojwani have filed the present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition for quashing the First Information Report dated 31 -8 -2006 registered as Crime Case No. 376 of 2006 under Sections 498 -A, 323, 313, 504, 506, 406, 120 -B, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh annexed with the petition and marked as (Annexure No. 1) thereto mainly on the grounds inter alia that the respondent No. 3 Smt. Roshini Bhojwani alias Preeti has lodged the said First Information Report against the petitioners on the absolutely false, fake, fictitious and concocted versions with a view to the degrading, defaming, disgracing, disreputing, harassing and humiliating the petitioners.

(2.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavits have been filed and these are on record.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the parties have relied upon the following cases : Case Laws referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioners : AIR 2006 SC 1675/jt 2006 (3) SC 491, Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (decided on 21 -3 -2006 -SC); N. G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, ; Bertram v. Bertram, (1944) 59; Cooper v. Cooper, (1950) WN 200 (HL); Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398; Blyth v. Blyth, (1966) 1 All ER 524; Wright v. Wright, (1948) 77 CLR 191; Gollins v. Gollins, 1964 AC 644; (1963) 2 All ER 966; Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Harizunnisa Yasinkhan, ; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, ; Sheldon v. Sheldon, 1966] 2 All E. R. 257 (CA); V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, ; Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, ; Bipin Chandra case ; Lachman Utamchand Kriplani v. Meena, ; Gananth Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, 082/ 2002; Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, ; Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi, 262/2001; Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram Narayanan, (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 588; Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon, 459/1993; Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal, ; Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma, ; Prakash Chand Sharma v. Vimlesh, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 642; A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar, ; Durga P. Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, 500/2005; Lalitha v. Manickswamy, I (2001) DMC 679 SC. Case Laws referred by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3: Pratibha Ram v. Sooraj Kumar and Ors. , 1985 (2) SCC 370; Dhanbindar Singh and Anr. v. State of N. C. T. of Delhi reported in Delhi Law Times 1985 page 324; Sujeet and Ors. v. State of Delhi and Ors. reported in Delhi Law Times 1985 page 200; Manoj v. State of Rajasthan reported in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 446 of 1996 dated 3 -3 -1997; Satvinder Kaur v. State Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr. , decided on 5 -10 -1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 1999 @ S. L. P. Crl. 1246 of 1999; Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. , 1992 CRLJ 1815; Deena Dev and Ors. v. Pratibha Dev (Vaid), 2003 CRLJ 3618 Gauhati High Court (Section 498 -A is a continuing offence); Roshan Khan v. State of Delhi, Crl. Misc. No. 1299 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2000, decided on 13 -7 -2000 V. A. D. Delhi 693; Mrs. Roopan Dev Bajaj and Ors. v. Kunwar Pal Singh and Ors. , 1995 (5) SCALE 189.