Dismissed

Dr. Rashid Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2022ABAIL/2377/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court rejected the plea as not maintainable. It held that protection against arrest had already been granted via an interim order in a prior Writ Petition, rendering the fresh application untenable.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as it is not maintainable in view of existing protection against arrest.

Dr. Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2377 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Rashid Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Saddam Husain

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for first informant.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Dr. Rashid Khan, in connection with Case Crime No. 554 of 2021, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and under section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act 2019, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for first informant has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present application. He submits that applicant has approached this Court by means of criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7162 of 2021 (Dr. Rashid Khan and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), wherein an interim order dated 7.9.2021 has already been passed. For ready reference same is reproduced:

¶9

"Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 18.07.2021, registered at Police Station Majhola, District Muradabad, as Crime No. 0554 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is a post-graduate dental doctor, whereas, respondent no. 4, his wife, is also a dentist. He submits that considering the educational background of the parties, there is every possibility of amicable settlement between the couple and therefore, the matter be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad.

¶12

The proposal given by learned counsel for the petitioners has duly been accepted by respondent no. 4 and the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that she is willing to go

¶13

for mediation provided the same is completed at the earliest and petitioner no.1 may not take any unnecessary adjournment.

¶14

Considering the fair approach made by the parties, we direct petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad on 15th September, 2021. The In-Charge, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad is directed to appoint one of the senior Mediator, to deal with the matter and the Mediator so appointed is directed to complete the proceedings latest by 25th October, 2021.

¶15

On the first date i.e. 15th September, 2021, petitioner no. 1 shall deposit the amount of Rs. 40,000/-, by way of demand draft/pay order in the name of Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad. Out of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- shall be payable to respondent no.4 on her second appearance before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and remaining Rs. 5,000/shall be payable to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶16

List this case on 29th October, 2021.

¶17

Heard on stay application.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, protection from arrest to the petitioners is granted till the next date of hearing. If the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by petitioner no. 1 on the first date i.e. 15th September, 2021, the protection from arrest granted to the petitioners shall automatically come to an end and the respondents shall be free to proceed against them in accordance with law and the office shall immediately list this case for further orders before the Court

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court, Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner(s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall made a declaration of such verification in writing. "

¶21

Subsequent to above, order dated 7.9.2021 was extended till the next date of listing vide order dated 21.2.2022. In view of above, learned counsel for informant submits that present application is not maintainable as there is no apprehension of arrest of applicant.

¶22

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶23

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.3.2022 Arshad

¶26

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.29 18:20:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Rashid Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rashid Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vipin Yadav @ Omveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shriram Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.