Disposed

Imran Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018CRLP/9386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court, in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an F.I.R. under SECTION 498A IPC related to a matrimonial dispute, declined to quash the FIR. Instead, directing the police to conclude investigation quickly without arresting the petitioners till the police report under SECTION 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Directing that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and police to conclude investigation as early as possible.

Imran Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9386 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Imran Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

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. 12 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act 1961, P.S.- Mahila Thana, district- Jyotiba Phuyle Nagar/Amroha.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; there is matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 13.4.2018 Ujjawal

Imran Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Rajan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Raman Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Karishma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Updesh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Anjana @ Anjali and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.