The Allahabad High Court while granting protection from arrest to the petitioner has pointed out that scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much larger than the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
The court has observed that to make out an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., mere allegation or assertion regarding harassment of the deceased does not suffice. In fact for constituting an offence of abetment of sucide under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement leading to commission of suicide.
“Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that petitioner shall not be arrested till the next date of listing, in connection with impugned F.I.R.”
The above direction has passed by Division Bench comprised of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mrs. Saroj Yadav while dealing with the petition filed by the sister- in-law of deceased to quash the F.I.R. lodged against her under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 306 I.P.C. in Bakshi Ka Talaab, Police Station, District Lucknow.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the sister of the wife of the deceased i.e. his sister-in-law and has been living a married life separately in Sitapur.
It was further submitted that from perusal of the recital made in the impugned F.I.R., in fact the case under Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out in as much as that except general allegation of harassment against the petitioner, there is no specific mention of any act direct or indirect of inciting the deceased to commit suicide.
The counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner and other family members and it is on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased that he committed suicide. He has further stated that anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner has been rejected by this Court.
The court while granting the interim relief to the petitioner has directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.
Case details
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 25222 of 2020
Petitioner :- Nasim Bano
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Deepak Singh, Anilesh Tewari, Manish Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., J Bahadur, S Tabreez, Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi
Bench: Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mrs. Saroj Yadav
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
