HUSAINI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the F.I.R. and also the relevant material on record. There is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 4 at this stage, hence it is dispensed with. The F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence, hence it cannot be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that as usual this F.I.R. has been lodged making false allegation of alleged demand of dowry against all the family members including the aged father-in- law and two married sister-in-laws (two nanands), petitioners nos. 1 to 3 who are living separately. He further submits that the husband being a law abiding citizen has already surrendered before the court below and has been enlarged on bail. The unfortunate father-in-law, petitioner no.1 is an infirm person aged about 70 years whereas the remaining two petitioners are married sister-in-laws as mentioned hereinabove. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the submission made hereinabove by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is provided that till credible evidence is collected, the petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No.365 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi subject to their cooperation in the investigation. With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.