Disposed

Bhanu Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2019CRLP/7888/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and protection from arrest. Noting a prior order and the victim's medical history leading to an unclear cause of death, the court orders continuation of the investigation without arresting the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Investigation of the case shall continue and not be arrested till collection of credible evidence.

Bhanu Pratap Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7888 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava for the respondent no.4; and perused the record.

¶4

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 20.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0229 of 2019, under Sections 307, 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District- Mainpuri.

¶5

The impugned first information report has been lodged by the sister of the victim. It has been lodged against husband; father-in-law; mother-in-law of the victim including; one maid; and one Shiv Kumar (nephew of father in law).

¶6

The allegations are in two parts. The first part of the allegations relate to an incident dated 08.10.2018. In respect of that incident, it is alleged that the victim-Sugandha had raised a protest in respect of illicit relations of the maid (Km. Anjali) with victim's husband. As a consequence whereof the victim's head was banged against the wall which resulted in serious head injury. In respect of the first part of the incident, it is stated that after the incident the victim-Sugandha returned back to her parental home with her two children. The second part of the first information report relates to an incident dated 16.03.2019. In respect of this incident, it is stated that Sugandha along with informant had visited the house of her in-laws to take the custody of her children. It is alleged that Km. Anjali, the maid servant, provided a knife to co-accused-Rajni (petitioner no.3), who, thereafter, assaulted the victim with the knife resulting in injuries.

¶7

The report was lodged 20.03.2019.

¶8

It appears that the victim had died on 17.03.2019. The post-mortem report of the victim is on record at page 194.

¶9

A perusal of the post-mortem report would reveal that two ante-mortem injuries were noticed. The first injury is a sharp wound on anterior surface of left forearm which is above the wrist joint and sutures were applied to it and it suggested that wound was caused within one day before death. The second injury noticed was that some part of right parietal and temporal bone was absent above the right ear. According to the opinion of the Doctor, this second injury seems to be on account of previous head surgery which had removed that part of the bone. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, viscera was preserved.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the incident dated 08.10.2018 never occurred in the manner, as alleged, and, in fact the victim was a patient of hypertension and on account of hypertension, she fell over as a result of which there had been internal bleeding and she was rushed to the Max Hospital by her husband and a surgery was performed. The discharge summary of that surgery is there on record at page 87 of paper book which discloses the diagnosis as acute subdural hematoma (SDH)-right fronto temporo parietal region. The past history

¶11

amongst the column of chief complaints is stated to be history of fall on 08.10/18 morning followed by vomiting and deterioration of consciousness. The past history also reflects an acute pulmonary thromboembolism. It is also disclosed that the patient had past history of pulmonary hypertension. The discharge summary indicates that the patient underwent right fronto temporo parietal decompressive cranectomy evacuation of haematoma done under GA on 08/10/2018.

¶12

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that incident dated 08.10.2018 was not reported earlier but was reported on 04.02.2019 and it was registered as Case Crime No. 0301 of 2019 at P.S. Indrapuram, District-Ghaziabad. It has been submitted that said first information report was registered under Sections 323; 325; 506; and 497 I.P.C. It has been submitted that in the aforesaid incident, section 304 I.P.C. has been added consequent to the death of the victim. It has been submitted that the second incident which has been narrated in the impugned first information report is nothing but false and just to exert pressure upon the petitioners to get custody of the children and the injury sustained in the incident is not serious as it is on the wrist.

¶13

The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that in respect of the first incident dated 08.10.2018 which was registered as Case Crime No. 0301 of 2019 at P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, the petitioners had filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2019 which was disposed off by order dated 01.03.2019 after noticing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Copy of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2019 dated 01.03.2019 is on record at page 189.

¶14

A perusal of the order dated 01.03.2019 would reveal that after considering the rival submissions, the Court was pleased to dispose off that petition by providing that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the above case till collection of credible evidence against them.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind that there had been a protection order passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2019, after noticing the medical history of the patient, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners shall not be arrested in the above case (Case Crime No. 0229 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri) till collection of credible evidence as has been earlier directed by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2019.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.4.2019 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Bhanu Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Ashok Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Vinay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Savitri Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Seema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Muskan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others