Shakir Hussain And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3469 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Shakir Hussain And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 November, 2023

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1598 of 2023
Shakir Hussain and Others                              ....Petitioners
                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners Shakir Hussain, Sadik Hussain

and Salman Shah seek quashing of Case Crime No.154 of

2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 365, 368, 504, and

506 IPC, Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh

Nagar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 18.11.2023, the elder

brother of the informant and his wife had some altercation.

Same night, at about 11:00-11:30, the petitioners along with

some other persons visited the house of the informant. They

assaulted and beaten up Wasim, the brother of the informant,

abused him and threatened him to life and forcibly took him

along with them in a vehicle. The victim was medically

examined. He was under treatment when the FIR was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that, in fact, the petitioner no.1, Shakir Hussain's

daughter is married to the victim Wasim. The petitioners, on

the date of incident, had visited the house of the informant

and they were returning with the daughter of the petitioner

no.1, when forcibly Wasim also accompanied them. He would

also submit that the report was given by the wife of the

victim, but it has not been lodged.

5. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so.

6. Undoubtedly, it appears that there was some

dispute between the victim and his wife. The petitioners are

in-laws of the victim. A complaint dated 22.11.2023, has been

enclosed by the petitioners as Annexure No.4. But, it does not

support what is argued. According to it, when the petitioners

were taking the wife of the victim along with them, on the

way, the victim signalled the vehicle to stop and forcibly he

sat in the vehicle.

7. If the victim was in his house when the

petitioners visited there, where is the question of stopping the

vehicle on the way, as stated in the complaint given by the

wife of the petitioner no.1? Be it as it may, the FIR makes

categorical assertions against the petitioners for harassing,

beating, assaulting and threatening to life the victim. What is

the truthfulness and credibility of the averments made in the

FIR, it would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as

the case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the

petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission

itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.11.2023 Ravi Bisht