The Court declined to quash an FIR involving Section 498A and related IPC charges but, relying on Supreme Court precedents, directed that petitioners not be arrested until the police submit their report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while requiring them to cooperate with the investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11328 of 2018
Petitioner :- Raju @ Lucky And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,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. 043 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 313, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Baradari, district- Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent 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; 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 also 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 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 and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.5.2018 Ujjawal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR containing false and concocted allegations coupled with general family implications merits quashing in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether a direction granting protection from arrest pending submission of the police report is appropriate to balance the liberty of the accused with the needs of investigation.
Whether the involvement of all family members in an FIR without prima facie evidence justifies quashing under the principles laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaReferred¶10
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶10
Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Raju @ Lucky And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Vipin Sinha
Mahboob Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
