Partly allowed

Shahzad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2018CRLP/11855/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR under 498A IPC, the court refused to quash the FIR but relied on Supreme Court precedents to direct no-arrest for petitioners until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

No-arrest order for petitioners pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC; FIR not quashed.

Shahzad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11855 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shahzad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Agarval Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 0468 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 304B, 504 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S . Kotwali Dehat, district Bulandshahar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that present FIR has been lodged on the basis of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.; marriage is of the year 2015; death of deceased has taken place in the hospital on account of some complication during the birth of child; 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.5.2018

¶14

T.S.

Shahzad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Sajid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shaila Alias Shahnila and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary Dept. of Home Affairs U.P. Shashan Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Huma and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Arti Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sonali Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Othrs.

km. Shahzadi and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others