Allahabad High Court
Abhishek And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83120-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18343 of 2022
Petitioner :- Abhishek And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Intekhab Alam Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- Anita Singh,G.A.,Prashant Shukla,Prem Babu Verma
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Intekhab Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The writ petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.08.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0013 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354(Ka), 354(kha), 307, 147, 342, 406, 452, 120B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Lalitpur.
There is specific allegation against petitioner no.1 who is husband of respondent no.4. The other petitioners are the family members of petitioner no.1.
So far as the husband-petitioner no. 1, namely, Abhishek, is concerned following orders is being passed:-
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 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.
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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as petitioner no. 1, Abhishek, is concerned.
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.
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.
Regarding Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8.
The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated14.08.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0013 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354(Ka), 354(kha), 307, 147, 342, 406, 452, 120B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Lalitpur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are family members of matrimonial home of respondent 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 respondent 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.
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.
Petition is disposed of directing that till cognizance is taken on police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., by the court the respondents shall not arrest the petitioner nos. 2 to 8 pursuant to the First Information Report, subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
Abhishek
(Surendra Singh-I,J. ) (Siddharth,J.)
