AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J
Heard petitioners’ counsel Sri Parikshit Saini and Sri J.S. Virk, assistant government advocate, who takes notice on behalf of respondent no.1
& 2.
The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent lodged a false complaint before the jurisdictional police, which came to be registered as case
crime no. 241 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 427, 323, 504 & 506 IPC.
The plea of the petitioners is that the first petitioner was married to the third respondent in the year 2002. It is after a long lapse of time, the
complaint has been filed on the ground that the first petitioner appears to have illegal relations with another woman. Therefore, he pleads that there is
substantial delay in filing the complaint and there is no material to substantiate the same. The said complaint is lodged only to harass him and his family
members.
On hearing learned counsels, I do not find any merit in this petition. Serious allegations have been made against the petitioners. Necessarily the
investigation is required to go on. The investigation cannot be scuttled only because the complaint has been filed.
However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there are very good chances of the jurisdictional police not complying with the
provisions of law especially with regard to section 41 & 41(A) of Cr.P.C..
To this, learned A.G.A. submits that all the provisions of law will be complied with while taking any action.
In view of the aforementioned submission, I do not find any ground to entertain the petition. Needless to state, respondent no. 2 shall comply with
the provision of law in a just and proper manner and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.