Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 925 (ALL)

Mohd. Noshad v. State of U. P.

2016-03-14

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the first information report in case Crime No. 70 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504,313 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 roping in the entire family of her husband, petitioner no.1 containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations with regard to demand of additional dowry from her and her parents and her mal-treatment in her matrimonial home by them for non-fulfillment of alleged demand of dowry. It is next submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR no evidence is forthcoming, even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the allegation of commission of offence under Section 377 IPC is confined against the petitioner no.1 hence his case is clearly distinguishable from other petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner nos.2 to 6. 4. Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. From the perusal of the FIR it appears that on the basis of allegation made therein prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no scope of interfering in the FIR. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused. 6. However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, it is directed that till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or credible evidence is collected, the petitioner nos.2 to 6 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case but the investigation of this case shall go on. 7. It is provided that in case the petitioner no.1 Mohd. 7. It is provided that in case the petitioner no.1 Mohd. Noshad appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 8. It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order. Subject to aforesaid directions this writ petition stands disposed off finally.