Pawan Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 5130 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3025 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.

This writ petition challenges the first information report lodged by the respondent no.4 whereby the accused are apprehending that they would be arrested in near future.

It is true that most of the sections for which the accused are being subjected to criminal jurisdiction is punishable for a period less than seven years and therefore the police before proceeding further would adhere by the provisions of Section 41 Cr.P.C. The impugned F.I.R. can not be said to be such which does not disclose any case being made out against the petitioners.

On the perusal of the first information report it is clear that the accused are in-laws of the original complainant. The marriage has taken place ten years ago which fact would also be borne in mind by the police. The general allegations will not permit us to interfere with the first information report in this writ jurisdiction.

We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC, 779. A reference can be made to judgment and order dated 08.02.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court which one of us (Hon.Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16771 of 2020 (Sandhya and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) directing to abide by provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

We find that the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R can not be granted. While going through the first information report we are not satisfied that any case for quashment is made out against the petitioners. Just because the petitioner nos.1 and 3 are practising Advocates, writ prayed for can not be granted. We are not concerned with the fact that the petitioner no.3 has expired.

Learned counsel for the petitioners should have filed an application for abatement of the case of the petitioner no.3, which is also suppression of material fact not being informed to the Court.

We can not orally rely on such statement. It goes without saying that it is the right of the parties to apply for bail as per law.

The writ petition is dismissed with cost.

Order Date :- 11.5.2021

R./