WPCRL/1056/2022 of GULSHER Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

complainant to her parental house and demanded `5 lacs as dowry from her father. On refusing their demand by complainant’s father, petitioner no. 1 gave divorce to her, as per Muslim Rites. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the FIR and there is no reliable evidence to prove the allegations levelled against petitioners. Whether allegations made in the F.I.R. are correct or not, cannot be gone into at this stage, especially when investigation is still in progress. Since F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence and none of the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, are fulfilled for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Learned State counsel fairly submits that since the offences are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, the procedure laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, shall be followed before effecting arrest, if any. In such view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of by taking the statement of learned State counsel, on record. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.06.2022Navin