Dismissed

Roshan Jahan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021CRLP/1396/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding a fake encounter and alleged police abuse, dismissing the writ petition as unnecessary without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without merit, directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate.

Roshan Jahan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1396 of 2021 Petitioner :- Roshan Jahan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

¶5

"A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/ order directing Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that FIR is lodged against Respondent Nos.4, 5 and the other erring police personnel of PS Charthawal under sections u/s 326, 342, 304 and 34 IPC for committing fake encounter of Dilshad, the husband of the Petitioner, on 15-10-2020 which resulted in grievous injury in his left leg;

¶6

B. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/ order directing Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that FIR is lodged against Respondent Nos. 4 and the other erring police personnel of PS Charthawal u/s 323, 342 and 34 of the IPC for physically abusing and wrongfully confining the Petitioner on 15-10-2020;

¶7

C. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/ order directing a court monitored investigation by an independent agency, such as a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or any other police team of a state other than Uttar Pradesh, in (i) the matter mentioned in (A) above, and in (ii) FIR No.416/2020 dated 15-10-2020 registered by PS Charthawal which falsely accuses the Petitioner' s husband of committing offences u/s 307 of the IPC and u/s 3, 25, and 27 of Arms Act, demanding strict Compliance with the 16 guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PUCL &Anr. VS. State of Maharashtra & ors., (2014) 10 SCC 635 in both (i) and (ii) ;

¶8

D. Issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus/ order directing Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to hold departmental inquiry against Respondent Nos.4, 5 and the other erring police personnel of PS Charthawal responsible for the fake encounter of the husband of the Petitioner resulting in grievous injury, and wrongful confinement and physical abuse of the Petitioner;

¶9

E. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/ order directing Respondent No.1 to pay exemplary damages under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the Petitioner for her physical abuse and wrongful confinement, and to her husband for his fake encounter resulting in grievous injury; and

¶10

F. Pass any such further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigating officer is not properly investigating the matter and collusively not taking action against the accused.

¶12

Be that as it may, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. This legal position has also been clarified by this court vide judgment dated 27.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others) .

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good reason to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, it is expected that the concerned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.2.2021/NLY

Roshan Jahan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Jahan v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Meena and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Udayveer Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tyrone Albert @ Tarun and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kum. Sinki (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Govind Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others