1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Smt Rekha And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|07 November, 2017
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24238 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Rekha And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 1742 of 2017, under Sections 323, 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by respondent no. 3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; much reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 to the affidavit accompanying the writ petition; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and and also the fact that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are women and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation.
So far as petitioner no.3, who is father-in-law of the deceased, is concerned, it is provided that if the petitioner no.3 appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner no.1. However, in case, the petitioner no.1 does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.11.2017 Imroz
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Vipin Sinha
  • Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel