- (1.) Heard Sri P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.D.Awasthi, learned counsel for the caveator, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 19.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No.126 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is husband of daughter of respondent no.3 and he along with his family members are said to have involved in the present case. He further submits that earlier to the lodging of the present FIR, an FIR was also lodged by daughter of respondent no.3 who is wife of petitioner no.1 on similar allegations against the petitioners which was registered as Case Crime No.77 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya, which was challenged by the petitioners before this Court by means of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.3980 of 2017, in which an interim order was passed by this Court vide order dated 22.3.2017 with respect to family members of petitioner no.1, but so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, petition was dismissed, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 (at page-38 of the writ petition), and after dismissal of the said petition, petitioner no.1 surrendered before the Court concerned and applied for bail and he was granted interim bail and thereafter regular bail for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 3/4 D.P. Act in Case Crime No.77 of 2017 on 22.12.2017 with the condition that he would bring back his wife. He further submits that it is alleged that thereafter on the same day, i.e., on 22.12.2017, petitioner no.1 along with his real brother petitioner no.3 and two unknown persons at 5.30 p.m. had gone at the house of respondent no.3 and there was some quarrel between them and the victim wife was assaulted by them. He next submitted that the incident dated, i.e., 22.12.2017 has been cooked up which appears false on the face of it as it is highly improbable and beyond imagination that petitioner no.1 who was granted bail in the earlier case would go on the same day at a distance of 100 kms. to the house of respondent no.3 and commit such an incident.He submitted that the medical examination report of the victim wife is a fabricated document just to make out a case against the petitioners. Moreover, the nature of injuries are simple in nature which can be easily manufactured as it appears to be superficial in nature only. He pointed out that the medical examination report of the injured shows that she was not to the hospital by any police personnel and had gone voluntarily on 22.12.2017 at 6.30 p.m. and FIR has been lodged near about a month after the incident on 19.1.2018.He next argued that the impugned FIR shows the malafide on the part of respondent no.3 in order to drag the petitioner no.1 and his entire family members for the similar offence for which an FIR was earlier lodged against them, in which arrest of family members of the petitioner no.1 was stayed by this Court and petitioner no.1 has also been granted bail by the competent court.;