JAMAL NASIR AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/5356/2025 · 2025-04-08
Prashant Bilgaiyan Registrar J Criminal, Vivek Kumar Birla
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30691 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30691 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51447-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5356 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jamal Nasir And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Kakkar,Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Irshad Husain Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
1. Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Irshad Husain, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the F.I.R. dated 18.02.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0012 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station- Biharigarh, District- Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners herein are mother-in-law, brother-in-law and father-in- law of the deceased and only general allegations have been levelled against them. The main allegation as per the first information report is against the husband, Samir Usmani. It is submitted that there is delayed F.I.R. in the present case and it is a case of accidental death and present F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide intention to extract money. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel has opposed the petition and has drawn attention to the post-mortem report in support of his argument. 5. We have gone through the postmortem report and we find that there are injuries including fracture of trachea as well. The cause of death is reported as 'died due to asphyxia as a result on ante- mortem throttling with suspected ingestion of poisonous substance'. 6. On a bare reading, we find that a cognizable offence is made out and that has taken place within about three and half years of
marriage. 7. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 8. . The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025 K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad