Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019CRLP/7000/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 498-A and 3 IPC. The Court held allegations disclosed a cognizable offence, refused the prayer, and disposed of the petition without an appropriate interim stay order, directing the party to file an application for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of the FIR is refused. No interim order on stay of arrest is granted.

Mohd. Shamsher Khan and 2 Others Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7000 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Shamsher Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.M.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri D.M. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jai Narain, 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 29.07.2018 registered as case crime no. 214 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 494, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Allahabd.

¶7

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.

¶8

The petitioners have 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 petitioners, it would not be appropriate to grant the ancillary relief. Beside that the petitioners, who are apprehending their arrest are 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.

¶9

The petitioners may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30.04.2019 and 06.05.2019 staying arrest of the petitioners, the same shall remain continue till 31st 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

¶10

Pradesh Amendment) on or before 27th July, 2019.

¶11

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Vikram

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shamsher Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mashrun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Neeraj Kaushik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Deepak Kuamr Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Asif and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others