Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019CRLP/24892/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the prayer to quash the FIR under sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, finding no cogent reason. However, it directed police to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. before arresting petitioners, noting that bail-like safeguards apply until the investigation concludes and a Section 173 report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR refused; direction to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. before arrest until investigation concludes.

Shahjad and 2 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. - 24892 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Shahjad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3. Memo of appearance is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.GA. for the State.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 09.11.2019 lodged as Case Crime No. 786 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act & Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.3 is the wife of the petitioner no.1 and other petitioners are her in-laws. The F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners in respect of alleged ill-treatment and cruelty meted to respondent no.3 on account of non-fulfillment of demand for dowry. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioners cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioners should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶11

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the F.I.R., hence the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused.

¶12

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioners that they would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for, then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.

¶13

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioners is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which they are wanted, the concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶14

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Ashok Gupta

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad and 2 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

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Beg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moizuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Shivpoojan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Sarswati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others