Dismissed

Arashaduddeen and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019CRLP/6036/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an F.I.R. registered under Sections 498A IPC for a matrimonial dispute, holding allegations disclosed cognizable offence. The court declined an interim stay but allowed an existing stay to continue if the petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash F.I.R. refused; interim stay of arrest allowed to continue conditionally.

Arashaduddeen and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6036 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Arashaduddeen And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Azhar Hussain,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat)

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devashish Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Brij Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 22.11.2018 registered as case crime no. 0216 of 2018 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was send to the Mediation Centre being a matrimonial dispute but mediation has been failed between the parties.

¶8

Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶9

The petitioner/s has also prayed for an interim order to stay the arrest during the course of investigation relating to the FIR that is sought to be quashed in this petition. In view of the judgment of Apex Court passed the case of State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 and Kala Bharti Advertising vs. Hemant Vimal Nath Narichania & ors. reported in 2010 (9) SCC 437 when we are not inclined to grant the main relief sought by the petitioner/s, it would not be appropriate to grant the ancillary relief. Beside that the petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest is having an efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) to have anticipatory bail.

¶10

The petitioner/s may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 9.5.2019 staying arrest of the petitioner/s, the same shall remain continue till 25th July, 2019, provided the petitioner/s move an application before the Court competent as per provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) on or before 24th July, 2019.

¶11

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Deepika

Arashaduddeen and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arashaduddeen 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

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

Gullu @ Heera Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mayur Chhattani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Roop Singh @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others