Dismissed

Mohd. Hayat Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2019CRLP/3561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging dowry harassment and death. The court examined FIR allegations showing a heinous offence with specific role assigned to petitioner, rejecting the plea of false implication. Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for quashing of FIR dated 1.2.2019 is rejected and writ petition is dismissed. Investigation allowed to proceed.

Mohd. Hayat Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3561 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Hayat Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Irfan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Irfan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the the petitioner and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.

¶7

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 1.2.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 16 of 2019, under section 498A, 304B, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Garhipukhta, District Shamli.

¶8

3. Challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the investigtion pursuant to the impugned F.I.R., it is submitted that the petitioner, who is maternal father-in-law of the deceased, has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the case. In fact he has no concern with the family affairs of his brother-in-law. He had denied the allegations made in the F.I.R. There is absolutely no reason for him to have indulged into any sort of dowry demand. He has further argued that in post mortem report, no external injury has been shown on the person of the deceased, hence, the viscera has been preserved for chemical analysis. Thus, F.I.R. being fictitious, baseless is liable to be quashed.

¶9

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer stating that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. His role has been specifically asserted in the F.I.R. itself that he had close connection with the other accused and on 29.1.2019 deceased Sana was sent back with Hayat Khan, mama of the accused Ariz and Rs. 1 lakh was

¶10

handed over to the petitioner for agency.

¶11

5. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶12

6. From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Offence is heinous in nature. Petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and his role has specifically been assigned in the F.I.R. itself. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶13

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :-20.2.2019 Ram Murti

Mohd. Hayat Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Hayat Khan 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

Shravan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devnath Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxman Vs State of U.P.

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

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Makhanchu Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others