Partly allowed

Shameem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2019CRLP/24304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC of the IPC, finding prima facie cognizable offences existed. However, it directed a stay on arrest for petitioners 1-4 pending the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and forbade harassment of petitioner 1.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash the FIR; stayed arrest of petitioners 1-4 pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; directed no harassment of petitioner 1.

Shameem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24304 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Shameem And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjeet Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Learned counsel Shri Jitendra Singh has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3 and short counter affidavit which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 6.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No.69 of 2019, under Sections 363,366 IPC, P.S. Bhamora, District Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 has already performed marriage with the petitioner no.2. The respondent no.3 who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner no.1 has lodged the impugned first information report with absolutely false and vague allegations that her daughter, petitioner no.1 was enticed away forcibly by them from her parental house. In fact, petitioner nos.1 & 2 are major and they are leading happy marital life. It is further submitted that no dispute, whatsoever, is remained pending between the parties as the respondent no.3 has accepted the marriage of her daughter with the petitioner no.2 and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has contended that all disputes and differences have amicably been settled by the parties outside the court. In this regard, the statement of the victim under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioner no.1 shall not be harassed in any manner. It is further directed that the petitioner nos.2 to 4 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that they shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.11.2019 M. Tariq

Shameem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameem and 4 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumit Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neetu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others