In the FIR it was stated that respondent No.1 alongwith his mother and sister had abducted daughter of respondent No.2 on 8.6.2005 at 7.30 p.m. After the FIR was lodged, police started investigation and recorded the statement of wife of the companyplainant.
Learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the police authorities had investigated into the matter on the basis of the companyplaint.
Statement of one Kamaljit Kaur was also recorded whose version was same as that of Smt.
Manjit Kaur.
The High Court also directed grant of protection to Ms. Neena Agnihotri and observed that she was free to go and stay at any place she desired.
On 28.6.2005 the High Court quashed the FIR and all companysequential proceedings including Crime Case No.165/05 pending before learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Customs , Lucknow.
The accused persons in the FIR were directed to be set free and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to take companynizance under Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code against respondent No.2 for filing with oblique motive the FIR.
The High Court further observed that imposition of companyt on respondent No.2 would create rift between the two families and companyt should number be paid by respondent No.2 on giving an undertaking that he would re concile to the situation.
The statement of Jagjit Kaur, aunt of the abducted girl was also recorded.
They were performing their duties and have recorded the statements of various persons.
The High Court thereafter in the companycluding para of the judgment held that it was a fit case where companyt of Rs.50,000/ was to be imposed against the State and respondent No.2 the father of the girl.
A direction was given for her appearance on 25.6.2005 under police force protection.
Before the said order was signed Ms. Neena Arora companyplained that she was being threatened by her in laws.
Father and mother of the accused were arrested by the police on 21.6.05.
The companycerned Bench of the High Court was again companystituted and order was passed that Shri Manoram Agnihotri and his wife were to be released, and security was to be provided to Nitin Agnihotri and his wife and the authorities were to ensure that the aforesaid persons were number harassed in any way.
The statements of Raj Kumar and Sanjeev Sabarwal neighbours of the companyplainant were also recorded.
On 20.6.2005 statement of Arun Kumar Singh was recorded by the police.
The High Court restrained the authorities and directed that they should number interfere with the peaceful living of the accused persons in companynection with the FIR referred to above.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, a practicing advocate in the High Court of Allahabad for issuance of writ petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing the FIR registered as Crime Case No.165/2005 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC in Police Station, Krishna Nagar, Lucknow and for certain other reliefs.
It was stated that FIR dated 9.6.2005 was lodged by Sardar Mahendra Singh respondent No.2 at the aforesaid police station.
According to him at about 8.00 p.m. he had seen the girl alongwith present respondent No.1 Nitin Agnihotri on a rickshaw.
The High Court by an interim order stayed the further investigation in Crime Case No.165/05.
By an order dated 27.6.05 it further held that FIR against Nitin Agnihotri by respondent No.2 was filed with oblique motive.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.
4120 M B of 2005.
