Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25703 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rahul Singh Chauhan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
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 F.I.R. dated 6.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 266 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 377, 511, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4, Pooja Singh, wife of petitioner no. 1, Rahul Singh Chauhan roping in the entire family of her husband including his mother and maternal grand-father (chachiya sasur) falsely alleging commission of offence by them under Sections 498A, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The allegation regarding commission of offence under Sections 377 and 511 I.P.C. has been made against the petitioner no. 1, Raul Singh Chauhan alone. As regards the offence under Section 307, there is neither any injury report of the respondent no. 4 on record nor any other material corroborating the commission of aforesaid offences by the petitioners. Moreover apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity and hence the impugned FIR qua petitioner nos. 2 to 3 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. 2 to 3 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. 1, Rahul Singh Chauhan is concerned, who is the husband of the respondent no. 4, Pooja Singh the petition stands dismissed. However, it is directed that in case he 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 :- 17.9.2018 SA