Partly allowed

Smt. Amreen and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2018CRLP/11402/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to quash an F.I.R. under IPC Sections 363 and 366. The court cited Supreme Court precedents regarding post-marriage complaints and mandated the police to investigate fairly without coercive action until the investigative report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

The F.I.R. is quashed; no coercive action to be taken until police report is submitted; police directed to investigate fairly within three months.

Smt. Amreen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11402 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Amreen And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yogendra Nath Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

Exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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. 442 /2018, under Section- 363, 366 IPC P.S.- Lisarigate,district- Meerut.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being disposed of.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; 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 petitioner(s) 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. Further submission is that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are major and they have also solemnized marriage out of their own sweet will without any pressure, threat or coercion and they are living happily as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 - Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P. , decided on 02.08.2013. As per adhar card, the date of birth of the girl is 14.03.2000. Much reliance has been placed upon annexure no. 3 to the writ petition.

¶10

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has strongly opposed the writ petition by placing reliance upon the scholar's Register & Transfer Certificate, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record, as per which the date of birth of the girl is 14.03.2002 and hence, she is a minor.

¶11

Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are present before this Court and they have identified each other and also they have been identified by their counsel on the basis of the documents produced in his chamber. With the consent of the parties, the Court now proceeds to examine petitioner no. 1.

¶12

On being asked from petitioner no. 1 as to what is her name, she informs the Court that her name is "Amreen"; on being further asked as to what is her age, she informs that her age is 19 years.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 - Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P. , decided on 02.08.2013 and also Suhani & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in civil appeal no. 4532 of 2018 decided on 26.04.2018 , no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed off finally with the following directions, at this stage itself :-

¶15

(a) Till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., no coercive action shall be taken or initiated against the petitioners, however they shall participate and cooperate with the investigation;

¶16

(b) Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned SSP/SP through the office of Government Advocate of this Court, who shall personally look into the matter and thereafter shall ensure that fair investigation is done in accordance with law without any whims, caprice or personal notion of morality.

¶17

(c) The police authorities are directed to investigate the matter fairly, expeditiously and submit the report as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from today keeping in view the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) rendered in the cases of Vishal Jaiswal And Another v. State of U.P. and Others passed on 26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016 and Shaheen Parveen And Another vs. State of U.P. and Orthers passed in writ petition no. 359 (M/B) of 2015 and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (6) SCC 396 (2014) and Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India passed in writ petition (civil) no. 231 of 2010.

¶18

(d) Liberty is also given to the respondents that if anyone of them has any grievance with this order, he/she may move recall application in the present proceedings itself;

¶19

(e) It is also being made clear that if the investigation has been completed and the police has already submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the present order will not be given effect to.

¶20

Liberty is also given to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the concerned SSP/SP along with a certified copy of this order and in case, such an application is filed the same shall be considered by the concerned SSP/SP and thereafter he shall look into the matter and issue necessary direction to the concerned Investigating officer for fair investigation keeping in view the guidlines of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Suhani & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in civil appeal no. 4532 of 2018 decided on 26.04.2018 ,

¶21

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off finally.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.5.2018/Anand

Smt. Amreen and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Amreen and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Darshan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prashant and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radha @ Gunjan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others