High Court declined to quash FIR but directed non-arrest of petitioners until police report submission, while mandating rapid investigation completion.
Non-arrest of petitioners till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; direction for expeditious 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. - 12264 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neelam Porwal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Bharti,Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) 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. 347 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 302 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Ajeetmal District Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that petitioners are mother in law and father in law; marriage is of 2011 and incident has taken place in 2018; there is one child aged about six years born out of said wedlock; husband is already in jail; 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; 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 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.
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 petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation as early as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.5.2018/SP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR under Sections 498A, 302 IPC should be quashed as containing false and malitigious allegations.
Whether interim protection from arrest should be granted to the petitioners during the investigation period.
Whether the特別な circumstances of the case warrant directing non-arrest until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaReferred¶9
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¶9
Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Neelam Porwal
Other petitioner
State Of U.P.
Other respondent
Vipin Sinha
Mahboob Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
