High Court refused to quash F.I.R. but directed non-arrest of petitioners until police report submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., mandating cooperation with investigation.
Petitioners not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; non-arrest on condition of cooperation with investigation.
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. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8887 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Rinku Devi And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.
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. dated 03.03.2018 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 24 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Maniyar, District Ballia.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the husband is not a party; the marriage is of the year 2003; the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; entire family members have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; 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 petitioners 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.
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.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F. I. R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675, and Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And others (SLP (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017 decided on 27.7.2017), we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation.
Order Date :- 10.4.2018/VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned F.I.R. under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act liable to be quashed
Whether petitioners can be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B. S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaReferred¶9
B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And othersReferred¶9
Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And others
Rinku Devi And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
