Re: Crl. Misc. Impleadment Application In Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25781 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bundan And 07 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ahmad Ali Siddiqui,Mohammad Abid Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners.
For the reasons explained in the accompanying affidavit, the impleadment application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners is permitted to implead the husband of respondent no.4 as petitioner no.9.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Anand Sri./-
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25781 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bundan And 07 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ahmad Ali Siddiqui,Mohammad Abid Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Impleadment application filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 29.07.2017 registered as Case Crime No.0187 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.4 Smt. Nisha wife of Irfan petitioner no.9 roping in the entire family of her husband including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, younger brothers-in-law, i.e. petitioner nos.1 to 8 alleging commission of offences by all the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. It is next contended that role of petitioner nos.1 to 8 is clearly distinguishable from that of the petitioner no.9 (husband). It is next contended that allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. are palpably false. Moreover, apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is coming forth even prima facie indicating their complicity in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned FIR qua the petitioners no.1 to 8 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegation made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.1 to 8 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.
As far as petitioner no.9 Irfan (husband) is concerned, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is directed that in case petitioner no.9 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 down 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 which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Anand Sri./-