Disposed

Smt. Jaheen Begum @ Janno and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024A482/6866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court noted the applicants (OP2's parents) were implicated on vague, omnibus allegations in an IPC/DP Act FIR. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents on such practices and granted interim protection by issuing notice to OP2 and staying proceedings against applicants until service report submission.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party No. 2; Proceedings against applicants stayed until next date after service report submission.

Smt. Jaheen Begum @ Janno and Another vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6866 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Jaheen Begum @ Janno And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Manzar Ali Khan,Akbar Ali Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Considering the fact as indicated that the applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 making vague and omnibus allegations have implicated entire family by lodging an F.I.R. No.0282 on 18.07.2023 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow.

¶8

The basis of the entire proceedings and also that habit to implicate all the family members making vague, bald and omnibus allegations have been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599.

¶9

It is also stated that in view of the aforesaid, particularly, the allegations levelled against all the family members, the present application is liable to be entertained and applicants are entitled for the interim protection.

¶10

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶11

Accordingly, issue notice to the opposite party No. 2. Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days.

¶12

List/put up this application in the first week of September, 2024 alongwith service report.

¶13

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings, in issue, shall remain stayed so far as the applicants herein are concerned.

¶14

In case, steps are not taken within the time aforesaid, the interim protection granted by this Court, would not be available to the applicants.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Jaheen Begum @ Janno and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jaheen Begum @ Janno and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 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

Murari Das @ Mahirajdhwaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urba Devt. Lucknow and Ors.

Smt. Anjani Devi Vs District Judge District Gonda and 5 Others

Smt. Smita Agarwal Vs Shri Saurabh Agarwal

Armaan Khan vs Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director,U.P State Road Transport Corporation, Lko. and Another

Pramesh Kumar Bajpai vs Vijay Kumar Addl.Secy. U.O.I. and Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,New Delhi and Others

Uttam Kumar vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko. and Another