Partly allowed

Shahjad and 03 Others v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018CRLP/8610/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the exemption application. While it declined to quash the impugned FIR, it directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, urging early conclusion of the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from arrest granted pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C; FIR not quashed.

Shahjad and 03 Others Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8610 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shahjad And 03 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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. 29 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 377 IPC, P.S.- Mahila Thana, district Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that 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; it is a no injury case; petitioners have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; the FIR has been lodged in pursuance of an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C; petitioner no. 3 has been filed a complaint against family member of respondednt no. 3 and the present proceedings have been launched as a counter blast; 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶12

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 the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Vikram

Shahjad and 03 Others v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad and 03 Others v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durgawati Shahni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shahanwaz and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others