- (1.) R. N. Ray, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants at length. Persued the application along with its annexures.
(2.) IT has been contended that petitioner No. 1 is a practising advocate in Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India and the sister of petitioner No. 1 Ms. Purnima Agarwal is also practising advo cate of Delhi High Court. The father of petitioner No. 1, Er. R. K. Agarwal is in Government service and at present he is functioning as Superintending Engineer, U. P. Electricity Board and is a public servant under the definition of Indian Penal Code. The mother of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Savitri Devi Agarwal is a chronic heart patient and is under the treatment of Escorts Heart In stitute, New Delhi. IT has been contended that respondent No. 2, Smt. Priti Agarwal took her belongings went to her parents house with two months pregnancy. It has been contended that O. P. No. 2 made an F. I. R. No. 210 dated 19-9-96 which was registered at Kotwali Roorkee under Section 498-A/323, I. P. C. and Sec tion 3/4, D. P. Act Zerox copy of the injury of O. P. No. 2 has been annexed with this ap plication under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The whole contention of the ap plicants petitioners is that just to pressurise them for undue actions as desired by the opposite parties. O. P. No. 2 lodged the E I. R. , though, in fact, there was no torture either mental or physical to the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2, Smt. Priti Agarwal was although treated very af fectionately with warmness by the petitioner No. 1. The family members of opposite party No. 2 influenced her to take the recourse of lodging the E I. R. on con cocted story on the ground that the alleged incident took place within the district of Ghaziabad. However, in view of the provisions of Sections 173 and 177, Cr. P. C. the matter should be tried at Ghaziabad. It has also been contended that I. O. Roorkee should not be allowed to make investigation as the petitioners apprehend that investiga tion may not be fair and there could not be any reason to believe that police officers at Ghaziabad are incompetent biased to O. P. No. 2.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit and sub mitted that O. P. No. 2 never conceived or there was no occasion for illegal termina tion of pregnancy. She was ill-treated and tortured by the petitioner No. 1 and his family members and she was assaulted physically and turned out from her husband's place and the allegations made in the E I. R. are true and the State Govern ment has every authority to get the matter investigated by any police officer under the State Governments control. Learned A. G. A drew my attention to the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Khilari Sharma, the Officer posted at P. S. Roorkee, District Hardwar and submitted that the trial should be held at Ghaziabad in view of the provisions of Sections 173 & 177, Cr. P. C. but State Government is competent enough to get the matter investigated by any Officer under the control of the Govern ment of U. P. and the objection regarding the legality of investigation made by the Officer of Roorkee is not maintainable in law.;