Court refused to quash FIR under 498-A IPC but granted interim bail to two petitioners and directed non-arrest of others pending investigation.
Prima facie cognizable offence made out; interim bail to petitioners 2 and 4; petitioner 6 not to be arrested; remitter for bail application of petitioner 6 allowed
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. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 36755 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sushil Gautam Alias Rahul And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the first information report dated 13.8.2018 registered in Case Crime No. 339 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 312 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sumerpur, district Hamirpur.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the respondent no. 3 and the other petitioners are his family members. The first information report lodged by the respondent no. 3 with absolutely false and vague allegations that she was humiliated and ill treated on account of non fulfilment of demand of dowry and has been unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the petitioners. The impugned first information report is thus liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the first information report, it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with the first information report. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners except the petitioner no.6 Ankita appear 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 in accordance with law.
The petitioner nos. 2 and 4, namely, Smt. Susheela and Smt. Santoshi shall be released on interim bail till their regular bail is not decided.
It is further directed that the petitioner no. 6 Ankita shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the Investigating Officer during
Investigation as contained under the provisions of section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J 1981, With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Shahnawaz
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
_Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J 1981_,Referred¶11
Sushil Gautam Alias Rahul And 7 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Naheed Ara Moonis
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
