Allahabad High Court
Idrish And Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 27 April, 2011
Bench: Vineet Saran, Surendra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22066 of 2010
Petitioner :- Idrish And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- F.N.Dubey,Prashant Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
By means of this petition, petitioners have challenged the FIR dated 24.10.2010 registered as case crime no. 371 of 2010, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar.
By order dated 03.12.2010, matter was referred to mediation for amicable settlement. In terms of the said order it is stated that petitioner has deposited the requisit amount of Rs. 10,000/-
Report of the mediation centre dated 25.03.2011 states that parties are not willing for mediation and only the petitioner no.1 appeared before the mediation centre. It is thus provided that in case, if the respondent No.4 had not appeared before the mediation centre in pursuance to the notice sent to her, the mediation centre shall return the amount deposited for the Respondent No.4 by the petitioners in terms of the order dated 03.12.2010.
Now we proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed.
Hence no ground exists for quashing the F.I.R.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper, till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible, also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full of this Court in Amrawati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cri.L.J.755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan vs. State of U.P. 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit, provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month.
It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above when and if the petitioners apply for bail before him.
For a period of three weeks from today or till the petitioners appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail (whichever is earlier), the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime.
In case the petitioners fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or they fail to cooperate with the investing officer during interrogation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.4.2011
Imroz
(Surendra Singh, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)
