Mohd.Muslim & Ors. vs State Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3306 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6408 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohd.Muslim & Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home,Lucknow & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indrajeet Shukla,Umesh Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents and Sri Abhinava Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

By means of present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the First Information Report dated 27.12.2020, registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 0387 of 2020, under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 363, 365, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Dhammaur, District - Sultanpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that second FIR in respect to the same occurrence is maintainable, as is well settled in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate relying upon a later judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kaushik and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9276 of 2012], decided on 14.02.2013, as argued that the first information report impugned in this writ petition is the FIR is verbatim same as compared to the previous FIR. The present FIR is cross version of the same occurrence and as such same is not permissible under the garb of law and the same position has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kaushik and Others (supra).

The submissions made by learned Additional Government Advocate appear to be satisfactory.

We are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case like the one at hand, yet looking to the fact that cross FIR for the same occurrence containing same version has been lodged by respondent no. 4, whose husband is accused in the previous FIR, we hereby provide that till credible material is collected against the petitioners or till filing of Police Report before the competent Court, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners, subject to their cooperation in the investigation.

With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 12.3.2021

A. Verma