Partly allowed

Mohammad Amjad @ Raza and 8 Others v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2025CRLP/13262/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act provisions arising from a matrimonial dispute implicating a husband and eight relatives. Quashing was refused for petitioner no.1, who was directed to surrender within 60 days with bail guidelines cited; for petitioners 2 to 9 notice was issued with arrest restrained till next listing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammad Amjad @ Raza and 8 Others vs State of U.P and 3… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:98548-DB

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13262 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohammad Amjad @ Raza And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The writ petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 9.6.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.321 of 2025, under Sections 85, 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationAmroha Nagar, District- Amroha.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are family members of matrimonial home of opposite party no.4. It has been submitted that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-petitioner no.1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no. 4 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh .

¶9

The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State Of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC 5991, has held that in such cases relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out.

¶10

So far as the husband-petitioner no. 1, namely, Mohammad Amjad alias Raza , is concerned following orders is being passed:-

¶11

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be

¶12

adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.

¶14

However, it is provided that if the petitioner no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the petitioner no.1 be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.

¶16

However, in case, the petitioner no. 1 do not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶17

It is made clear that the petitioner no. 1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶18

So far as the petitioner nos. 2 to 9 are concerned the following order is being passed:-

¶19

Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 3 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.

¶20

Issue notice to opposite party no.4 returnable at an early date.

¶21

Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks

¶22

thereafter.

¶23

List this case after six weeks.

¶24

Till the next date of listing or till cognizance is taken by court on police report submitted under Section 193(2) B.N.S.S., whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained from arresting the petitioners pursuant to the First Information Report.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.6.2025 Kumar Manish

¶26

(Harvir Singh,J.) (Siddharth,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Amjad @ Raza and 8 Others v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohammad Amjad @ Raza and 8 Others v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aslam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Okendra Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Khushboo and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Jain vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Jaiswal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others