Partly allowed

Smt. Rizwana and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018CRLP/34806/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR under Section 366 IPC. While not inclined to quash, the court stayed coercive action until the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) CrPC, contingent on petitioner's cooperation.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against petitioner until submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC, conditional on cooperation.

Smt. Rizwana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34806 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Rizwana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Order on Amendment Application No.3 of 2018

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for State on the application seeking amendment in the petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to delete the name of Smt. Rizwana w/o Shadab.

¶8

The application being not opposed, is allowed. Learned counsel is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the court itself.

¶9

Registry to re-register the case showing the correct name of the parties.

¶10

Order on Writ Petition.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR dated 05.11.2018 in respect of Case Crime No. 446 of 2018 under Section 366 of IPC, Police Station, Kotwali Nagar, District, Aligarh.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerShadab has performed marriage with Smt. Rizwana on 3.11.2018 and the couple is living happily, but unfortunately, the said marriage is not liked by the respondent no.4. Learned counsel submits that as per Aadhar card, the age of Smt. Rizwana is more than 18 year and as such, the offence under Section 366 of IPC is not made out.

¶13

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition.

¶14

Be that as it may, keeping in mind the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, we are not inclined to quash the first information report. The petition in that respect is dismissed.

¶15

However, in the larger interest, considering the nature of allegations, the State authorities are directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C before the court concerned.

¶16

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioner cooperates in the investigation.

¶17

The petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Shahid.

Smt. Rizwana and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rizwana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dela Singh Vs State

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

Rambresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Afzal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others