Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2929 (ALL)

Mohd. Shakir Alias Sarvesh Khan v. State of U. P. Thru Secy.

2015-09-16

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, MUKHTAR AHMAD

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 12.12.2014 registered as case crime no. 532 of 2014, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Achhnera, District-Agra. Further prayer is to direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. 3. In compliance of the order dated 23.3.2015 no step has been taken to deposit the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 to 12 are Jeth, Jethani, Devar, Devrani, unmarried Nand, Chachiya Saas and Chachiya Sasur of respondent no.3. They have been implicated in the present case with false and exaggerated version. They are living separately and not concerned with any kind of dispute. Even if there is dispute between husband and wife. Hence impugned FIR in respect of them is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. informed that earlier effort was made to settle the matter before the Court below. However mediation failed. Hence in view of the fact and allegations made in the FIR, at this stage it is not a fit case for interference. 6. In view of the fact and circumstances, and in view of the interim order dated 23.3.2015, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner nos. 3 to 12 till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in aforesaid case provided they cooperate with the investigation. In respect of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, in the interest of justice, if they appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed of, expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 . With aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed off.