Partly allowed

Madanpal Malik and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020CRLP/11157/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR implicating the entire husband's family. Court dismissed the quashing prayer generally but allowed an order preventing arrest for the married sisters-in-law pending police report submission.

What did the court decide?

Investigation continued against Petitioner 3 and 4 with direction against their arrest pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Petition of Petitioner 1 and 2 dismissed.

Madanpal Malik and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11157 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Madanpal Malik And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Kaushik,Krishna Shankar

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; Sri Krishna Shankar for the respondent no.3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 30.07.2020 registered as Case Crime No.09 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 326, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Shamli.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the allegations made in the first information report may disclose commission of cognizable offence but unnecessarily the entire family of the husband has been implicated including the married sisters-in-law (Nanad) by levelling false allegations.

¶8

The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the allegations clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence and it is a case where the victim has been severely beaten and she has been medically examined and the report shows multiple injuries on her body.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners 3 and 4 are married Nanad and only general allegations have been levelled against them therefore they are entitled to protection pending investigation.

¶10

Be that as it may, whether the allegations are true or false would have to be determined on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶11

However, considering that the petitioners 3 and 4 are married Nanad, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that in so far as petitioner no.3 (Rashmi); and petitioner no.4 (Sarika) are concerned, the investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but they shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they co-operate in the investigation. The petition of petitioner no.1 (Madanpal Malik) and petitioner no.2 (Rajveeri Devi) is dismissed without prejudice to their right to apply for bail.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.10.2020 AKShukla/-

Madanpal Malik and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madanpal Malik and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

America Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abdul Karim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others