Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24364 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rohitpal And 06 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Imran Syed
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satya Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 4 in the Court today which is kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 12.07.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1059 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 420, 406, 120B, 34, 493, 467, 468, 469, 471, 498A, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D. P. Act, 1961, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 roping in the entire family of her husband petitioner no. 1, Rohitpal including his father petitioner no. 2, Shrinath, mother petitioner no. 3, Smt. Shivkali, brother petitioner no. 4, Rammilan Pal, sister petitioner no. 5, Laxmi, sister petitioner no. 6, Santosh, brother-in-law petitioner no. 7, Kaushal (jija) containing absolutely false and concocted allegations regarding commission of offences by them under Section 323, 504, 506, 420, 406, 120B, 34, 493, 467, 468, 469, 471, 498A, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D. P. Act, 1961.
Neither the statement of respondent no. 4 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded nor she had come forward to get herself medically examined. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is coming forth even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that upon perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence against the petitioners is made out and hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of this writ petition with the following conditions:-
1. The investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.
2. Qua petitioner no. 1, Rohitpal, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 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.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018 Rahul.