Allahabad High Court
Nadeem Durrani And 6 Others vs State Of Up Through Principal Secretary ... on 23 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94084-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1273 of 2024
Petitioner :- Nadeem Durrani And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up Through Principal Secretary Home Government Of Up At Lucknow And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
Counsel for Respondent :- Brajesh Kumar Singh,Firoz Haider,G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State; learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 08.01.2024 lodged in Case Crime No.003 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 354, 504, 506 IPC; Sections 3/4 D.P. Act and Sections 3/4 the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Colonelganj, District-Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1 is husband of respondent no.3 and others are family members of petitioner no.1. All of them have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no. 3 on the general allegations.
4. So far as the husband-petitioner no. 1, namely, Nadeem Durrani, is concerned following orders is being passed:-
5. 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 petitioner no.1. 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 petitioner no.1 has 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.
7. However, it is provided that if the petitioner no.1-Nadeem Durrani 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.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said petitioners are family members of matrimonial home of opposite party no.3. It has been further submitted that the entire family members of the husband-petitioner no.1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.3 on the general and vague 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.
12. 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.
13. In view of the above judgments of Apex Court, the aforesaid F.I.R. against petitioner nos. 2 to 7 is hereby quashed.
14. The writ petition is allowed with regard to petitioner nos.2 to 7.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
I.A.Siddiqui
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
