Partly allowed

Mukesh Bansal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018CRLP/31131/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an FIR involving allegations of cruelty and IPC offences. While the petition against three petitioners was dismissed due to disclosed offences, the court directed that two other petitioners not be arrested until the submission of the police report under CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to proceed; Petitioners 4 and 5 not to be arrested till police report; Protection and bridging for petitioners 1 to 3.

Mukesh Bansal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 31131 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mukesh Bansal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam,Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi ( Sr. Advt.)

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari

¶5

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶6

Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶7

Heard Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents.

¶8

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 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 567 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376, 511, 120-B, 377, 313, 342 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Pilkhwa, District Hapur.

¶9

It is submitted by Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Seniior Advocate that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by Shivangi Bansal, respondent no. 3, who is the wife of petitioner No. 3 Sahib Bansal roping in the entire family of her husband including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brotherin-law (Devar) and sister-in-law (Nand), containing absolutely false and concocted allegations regarding commission of offences by them u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 120-B, 313, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against all the petitioners while specific allegation regarding commission of offence under section 377 IPC has been made by her against her husband-petitioner No. 3. Allegations regarding commission of offence

¶10

under sections 376 and 511 IPC, which are not warranted by any material on record, which have been made against her father-in-law, petitioner No 1 and brother-in-law (devar) Chirag Bansal, petitioner No 4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR has been lodged with the sole mala fide intention of harassing the petitioners, although from the allegations made in the FIR itself it is apparent that the petitioner No. 3 Sahib Bansal and his wife Shivangi Bansal are residing separately. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding commission of offence under section 313 IPC is not warranted by any evidence, thus, the impugned FIR which is a product of malice and bundle of lies, is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as the instant writ petition has been filed suppressing the injury report of respondent No. 3 by making a vague averment in the writ petition that the petitioners could not obtain the copy of the injury report of respondent No. 3. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the injury report of respondent no. 3, which has been brought on record by him as annexure 1 to the short counter affidavit, indicates that attempt was made to strangulate respondent No. 3 to death. It is further submitted that merely because petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 claim to be living separately from Sahib Bansal, petitioner No. 3 and Shivangi Bansal, respondent No. 3, their complicity in the commission of alleged offences cannot be ruled out. There being no merit in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Learned AGA has adopted the submissions made by Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3.

¶13

The injury report of respondent no. 3, which has been brought on record as annexure 1 to the short counter affidavit, clearly shows that her injuries were examined through Investigating Officer at

¶14

Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi, a Government Hospital by Dr. Mamta Verma, Casualty Medical Officer of the Government Hospital at 9.11 p.m. on 04.10.2018. A perusal of the injury report indicates 'linear transverse bruise seen over anterior & lateral aspect of neck' and a burn spot seen on left forearm.

¶15

Having heard and perused the impugned FIR and the allegations made therein and the other material brought on record, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it cannot be said that the impugned FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence while there is some force in the submission of Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3.

¶16

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-

¶17

The investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos. 4 and 5, namely Chirag Bansal and Shipra Jain, 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.

¶18

Qua petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3 namely, Mukesh Bansal, Manju Bansal and Sahib Bansal, 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 the petitioner No. 1 to 3 appear before the court concerned within two weeks from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.11.2018 Sazia

Mukesh Bansal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Bansal and 4 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Iqbal Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagpat Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brahma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others