Remanded

Mahfooz v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019CRLP/1872/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to wholly quash an FIR registered against the petitioner for matrimonial disputes. Instead, relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., provided he cooperates with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with investigation.

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1872 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahfooz Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar,Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 251 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 506, 354(B), 377, 376, 511 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner; controversy involved in issue is matrimonial in nature; it is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife; the marriage is of the year 2006 and having three children; the divorce has already taken place, copy of which has been annexed on page 27 of the writ petition; 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 petitioner 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 24.1.2019 Mini

Mahfooz v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahfooz 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

Rakhi Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Bhuri Devi @ Anjali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others