Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2019CRLP/23478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and refused interim relief by staying arrest, citing Supreme Court precedents barring interim orders when the main relief is declined.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the prayer for interim stay of arrest was also refused.

Shantee Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23478 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shantee

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶8

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of the first information report dated 05.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0132 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Pailani, District Bada.

¶9

From a perusal of first information report and taking the allegations contained therein to be true, it cannot be said that commission of a cognizable offence is not made out. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioners also could not show that no offence whatsoever has been made out in the aforesaid first information report. Therefore, question of its quashing in the limited scope of judicial review in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioners, at this stage, stated that even if the F.I.R. has not to be quashed and the writ petition has to be dismissed, this Court may pass an interim order protecting the petitioner from arrest.

¶11

The submission is thoroughly misconceived.

¶12

Once the writ petition is dismissed, this Court has no power to pass any order in the nature of interim or interlocutory order. The Apex Court has deprecated such practice and has held, if final relief has been declined, no interim relief/interim order should be granted to petitioners. The first such

¶13

¶14

case is State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta AIR 1952 SC 12 . Therein High Court declined to grant final relief on the ground that there was an alternative remedy available to petitioner and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition relegating petitioner to avail alternative remedy, but then observing that before filing suit, 60 days' notice under Section 80 C.P.C. will have to be given, which will take some time, an interim relief was granted. Deprecating this, Apex Court said that grant of relief under Article 226 is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party has been infringed. Therefore, existence of right is foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. When the Court has decided nothing at all in respect to rights of parties, it would not be justified to grant any relief, final or interim, as the case may be, since Article 226 does not confer such jurisdiction. In para 6 of the judgment, the Court said:

¶15

"In our opinion, article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court has purported to do. The directions have been given here only to circumvent the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and in our opinion that is not within the scope of article 226. An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding. If the Court was of opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other directions of a like nature; and pending such determination it might have

¶16

¶17

made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of article 226 does not permit such an action. On that short ground the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be upheld."

¶18

The aforesaid dictum has been followed in Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1305 (para 22), Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and others AIR 1983 SC 1272 (para 10) and Km. Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others (2014) 4 SCC 453 (para 22).

¶19

In view thereof, we have no hesitation in observing that the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. if is declined on the ground that allegations contained therein discloses cognizable offence, therefore, no interference is called for at this stage, this Court would not be justified in granting any relief as an interim order by staying arrest since it will amount to grant a relief to the petitioners without deciding their right in any manner and this would be against the exposition of law settled by Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions.

¶20

Even otherwise, at this stage, this Court is not examining legality or otherwise of arrest made by police, since neither any one has been arrested nor this writ petition as such has been filed with a complaint that police or investigating officer has committed violation of any provision pertaining to arrest of any person or the petitioners themselves. The main relief in the writ petition is for quashing of first information report which, admittedly having disclosed commission of cognizable offence is not

¶21

¶22

liable to be interfered with at this stage.

¶23

In view of above, no interference is called for.

¶24

The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.11.2019 YK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantee 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

Bhuley Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kalawati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sudha Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Anuj Chaturvedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanket Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manju Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others