Dismissed

Hafizullah and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2019CRLP/17274/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash an FIR alleging offences under sections 498A, 307, and 504 IPC. Staying arrest was refused as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, pending which an existing interim stay continues until August 15, 2019.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash FIR or stay arrest; directed petitioner to file anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC.

Hafizullah and 5 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17274 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Hafizullah And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prakash Veer Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 31.05.2019 registered as case crime no. 100 of 2019, under sections 498A, 307, 494, 504, 120-B, 323, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dumariyaganj, District Siddhartha Nagar.

¶7

Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶8

The petitioner/s has also prayed for an interim order to stay the arrest during the course of investigation relating to the FIR that is sought to be quashed in this petition. In view of the judgment of Apex Court passed the case of State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 and Kala Bharti Advertising vs. Hemant Vimal Nath Narichania & ors. reported in 2010 (9) SCC 437 when we are not inclined to grant the main relief sought by the petitioner/s, it would not be appropriate to grant the ancillary relief. Beside that the petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest is having an efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) to have anticipatory bail.

¶9

The petitioner/s may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.6.2019 staying arrest of the petitioner/s, the same shall remain continue till 15.08.2019, provided the petitioner/s move an application before the Court competent as per provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) on or before 10.08.2019.

¶10

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 30.7.2019 A. Tripathi

Hafizullah and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafizullah and 5 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Bali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani @ Avanish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gauri Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nadeem Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irshad Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others