Partly allowed

Bilal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018CRLP/8889/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioners' plea to quash the FIR and directed that for Petitioners 1-3, no coercive action be taken if they surrender and apply for bail within 45 days, while for Petitioners 4-5, arrest is stayed until the police report under CrPC Section 173(2).

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against Petitioners 1-3 if they surrender and apply for bail within 45 days; arrest of Petitioners 4-5 stayed till police report filed.

Bilal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8889 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bilal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Annapurna Devi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

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 16.01.2018 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 20 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 307, 313, 315, IPC Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainantrespondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; much reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos. 2 to 5 to the affidavit accompanying the writ petition; 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.

¶6

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.

¶7

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 quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶8

So far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, the following order is being passed;

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned AGA, it is directed that in case, petitioner nos. 1, 2 and

¶10

3 appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 days from today or till petitioner no. 1 surrender and applie for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, in case, petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

So far as petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, the following order is being passed;

¶12

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 petitioner nos. 4 and 5 shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 shall participate and co-operate with the investigation.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 10.4.2018/VKG

Bilal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bilal and 4 Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahzad @ Guddan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rinku Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.