- (1.) K. K. Misra, J. It is not disputed between the parties that both the writ petitions involve common question as they relate back to the F. I. R. dated 2. 4. 2007 lodged by opposite party No. 4 against the petitioners of both the writ petitions alleging therein dowry death, accordingly we propose to dispose of these petitions by a common order.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for disposal of both the writ petitions is as under:- Late Smt. Anju was married to the petitioner Budhhiman Singh @ Raju S/o late Barakkey R/o Atrauli, District Hardoi on 9. 5. 2004. In the dowry, ornaments, cash, motorcycle, T. V. and other domestic articles were given to the petitioners by the father of the deceased, but the husband and his family members remained unsatisfied and there was continues lust for the dowry and with this end in view the deceased was tortured. On 1. 4. 2007 at about 8. 30 p. m. the complainant received information on telephone that his sister was seriously ill and was admitted in hospital, upon this the complainant and his family members reached the marital house of his sister and saw that his sister was lying dead in the courtyard. Accordingly they suspected that due to non fulfillment of dowry demand his sister might have been killed, accordingly an F. I. R was lodged at P. S. Atrauli on 2. 4. 2007 at 5. 30 a. m. , on the basis of which a case was registered at crime No. 305 of 2007 under section 498-A. 304-B I. P. C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. THEreafter the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. Accordingly, it has been urged on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Court may exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the same. The writ petitions have been preferred with the following reliefs:- " (i) a writ, or writs, direction or directions and or order or orders in the nature of Certiorari quashing the prosecution of the petitioners under sections 498-A/304 I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, of Police Station Atrauli District Hardoi on the basis of the first information report of Case Crime No. 30 5/2007 aforesaid contained in Annexure No. 1 here-in-above, together with the so-called investigation of the same, if any, after summoning the original records of the crime in question lying with the police concerned. (ii) writ, or writs, directions or directions and/or order or orders in the nature of Mandamus staying the arrest of the petitioners and further harassment, humiliation and harm to the petitioners at the hand of the police concerned in the garb of proceedings of investigation of the concerned case Crime No. 305/07 of Police Station Atrauli District Hardoi pending this petition in the Hon'ble Court. (iii) any other writ, or writs, direction or directions and/or order or orders deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998 (36) ACC 20 (SC) ). As no offence is disclosed, it would be a sheer wastage of time and abuse of process of law.
(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the State that not only F. I. R. but after investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the Court on bundle of facts and circumstances, which leave no room for doubt that the petitioners are guilty for the commission of the offences and at this stage the petitioners misconceived the facts and both the writ petitions have been filed on improper grounds. IT is always open for the petitioners to agitate before the Trial Court and to move application for discharge. In case they do not succeed then only they can move this Court for legal redress. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court empowers this Court to interfere when the bundle of facts disclose no offence, but when the decision is dependent upon the appreciation of evidence, in that case the Court should refrain from exercising extraordinary powers especially where specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are available before the Trial Court, which can pass appropriate orders. Considering the merit of the case, we would refrain to make any comment which may cause prejudice to either of the parties. The surrounding circumstances lead us to an irresistible conclusion that it would be better if factual aspect should also be taken into consideration and that too before the Trial Court and it would not be expedient for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and to look into the matter superceding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there would be an abuse of process of law if the F. I. R. as well as the chargesheet are not quashed.;