Court No. - 25 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 24 of 2010 Petitioner :- Keshav Gurnani S/O Late Bhola Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Kr. Singh,Abhishek Misra Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Abdul Mateen,J.
Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard Shri Virendra Bhatia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Shri
A.K.Jaiswal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.4.
Under challenge in the instant writ petition is FIR relating to Case
Crime No. 1000 of 2008 under Section 306 IPC, police station Gomti Nagar,
district Lucknow.
We have gone through the contents of FIR from which it comes out
that one Smt. Minakshi, said to be wife of respondent no. 4, has committed
suicide as alleged due to illicit relation with the petitioner.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no
doubt initially the FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC, but since
nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner with respect to
commission of offense under Section 306 IPC, as such, the case was
converted by the I.O. under Sections 498-A/304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is further argued that after the case having been converted
under Sections 498-A/304B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
and when under these Sections again nothing was found during the course of
investigation, as such, again the case was converted with respect to original
Section 306 IPC. Now the Police is after the petitioner without any rhyme or
reason and without there being any evidence of Section 306 IPC. It is further
argued that once once complainant/respondent no. 4 was sent to jail after the
case having been found to be within the parameter of Sections 498-A/304B
IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, then again investigation
has been tilted towards the petitioner with respect to alleged commission of
crime under Section 306 IPC which is a sham.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that since nothing
was found during the course of investigation that Smt. Minakshi was done to
death due to lust of dowry and evidence has come that she has committed
suicide due to having illicit relation with the petitioner, as such, involvement
of the petitioner under Section 306 IPC is very well made out since Smt.
Minakshi has died an unnatural death.
As to whether, it is a case under Section 306 IPC or under Sections
498-A/304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is matter of
investigation and, as such, the FIR cannot be quashed. Since it discloses
commission of cognizable offence However, in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we hereby direct that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the
aforesaid case crime number unless and until cogent and reliable evidence
comes forward against him during the course of investigation with respect to
his involvement in commission of crime under Section 306 IPC, provided he
cooperates with the investigation, which shall go on.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
Kaushal