Partly allowed

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2019CRLP/49/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal misc. writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR based on alleged concocted false complaints in a matrimonial dispute, the Court declined to quash the FIR but directed non-arrest of petitioners pending the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., mandating investigation completion within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 49 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhupesh @ Sonu And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Tripathi,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajai Krishna Srivastava

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajai Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

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.44 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 377, 376, 354Kha, 504, 506, 406 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana District Bulandshahar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; there is matrimonial dispute between petitioner no.3 who is the husband and the first informant who happens to be the wife i.e. respondent no.3; entire family members including Mamiya Sasur,Chachiya Sasur, Chachia Saas and Devar have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; 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 petitioner(s) 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 4.1.2019 SP

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 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

Smt. Fatima Bi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Km. Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bal Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashiq and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others