Partly allowed

Mainpal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2019CRLP/401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed that the petitioners in a matrimonial criminal case filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC need not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while ensuring they participate in the investigation which must conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to conclude within three months.

Mainpal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 401 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mainpal And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

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.141 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, IPC and 3/4, D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bijnor.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present matrimonial case on the basis of general allegations; that it is a no injury case; that petitioner no.5 happens to be husband of respondent no.3 and their marriage is four years old. Further contention is that 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 petitioners 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.

¶7

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, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶8

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶9

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.1.2019/VKG

Mainpal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainpal and 5 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukayya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Javed Quraishi and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Uma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monu and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ayyub Husain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Meena and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others