Ram Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 37896 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 November, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180266-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17352 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Singh And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Pushkar
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 18.08.2024 registered as Case Crime no.445 of 2024, under Section 108 of BNS 2023, P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the relief for the petitioner no 1 as he was already arrested. He further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged totally on false allegations just to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention submits that no case is made out under Section 108 B.N.S even the version of the first information is accepted. As such it is submitted that this Court may come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgments in Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260.

4. Learned AGA on instruction states that the deceased has made endorsement on his palm, wherein he has alleged and made certain allegations against his wife-respondent no. 3 and the cause of suicide.

5. Matter requires consideration.

6. The relief sought on behalf of the petitioner no. 3 stands rejected.

7. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List immediately thereafter.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly discussed above, as an interim measure, till the next date of listing or till submission of police report u/s 193(3) B.N.S.S., whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner no.2 and 4 pursuant to the impugned FIR, subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.

9. We are also of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report, insofar as it relates to the petitioner no.3, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, as also in latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi and others) connected with Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2024.

10. The present writ petition, insofar as it relates to the petitioner no.3 is disposed of, leaving it open for her to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 18.11.2024

Manoj