The High Court refused to quash an F.I.R. alleging rape, sexual harassment, and cruelty. It ordered exemption from arrest for in-laws and fast-track bail hearing for those accused of sexual offences.
Exemption from arrest for some petitioners pending police report; expeditious bail hearing directed for others.
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. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15475 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mohd Ashif And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sageer Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 7.6.2018 in Case Crime No. 462 of 2018, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 377 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Brahmpuri, District- Meerut.
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 petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing them. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken on their face value and accepted to be true, the same do not disclose any offence against petitioner no.2 (father-in-law), petitioner no.3 (mother-in-law), petitioner no.4 to 7 (brother-in-laws) and petitioner no.8 and 9 (sister-in-laws) of respondent no.3, and their case is clearly distinguishable from petitioner no.1 (husband) and petitioner no.6 against whom there are allegations of offence u/s 377 and 376 IPC respectively. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R., we are not inclined to quash the same.
However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of this writ petition with the following conditions:-
1. The investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.2,3,4,5,7,8 and 9 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.
2. Qua petitioner no.1-Md. Ashif and petitioner no. 6-Sakib, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case she appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below . Order Date :- 18.6.2018 Shalini
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. alleging offences under Sections 498A, 376, 377 IPC etc. should be quashed as the allegations are false and malafide.
Whether certain petitioners should be exempted from arrest pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Whether bail for petitioners accused of sexual offences should be heard expeditiously.
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohd Ashif
Sakib
State Of U.P.
Sri Sageer Ahmad
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
