Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6183 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Secretary, Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Jay Narayan Pandey,Surya Prakash Shukla Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar DIXIT,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the
F.IR.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner
no.1 Vinod Kumar and petitioner no.2 Srinarayan are brother-in-laws (Jeth) of
the victim and petitioner no.3 Sridutt Tiwari is the maternal father-in-law of
the victim who were already living separate from victim and her husband. The
petitioners had filed ration cards in support of their allegations made in the
petition which show their separate living. The allegation of the complainant is
that the accused who were made the demand of motorcycle it was the husband
of the victim who took the demand of motorcycle. The accused-petitioners
cannot be said to be the beneficiaries of the so called demanded dowry. The
accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant mainly on the
ground of being brother and material uncle of the husband of the complainant.
The accused needs protection.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed it.
We have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. which disclose the
commission of cognizable offence and as such it cannot be quashed.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
provided that in case the petitioners appear before the trial court and move
any bail application, the same will be disposed of by the courts below
expeditiously preferably on same day.
Order Date :- 5.7.2010
PAL