# Mohd. Arshad Qureshi & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 2021
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-06
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-arshad-qureshi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43910
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

5 All. Mohd. Arshad Qureshi & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2021
proved fatal to his life and he died almost instantaneously. By piercing gupti in the chest of
deceased, the appellant had certainly intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased and since the
bodily injury inflicted to the deceased by piercing gupti in his chest was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, hence clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 I.P.C. would squarely be
attracted and since the case is not covered by any of the Exceptions mentioned in this section,
therefore prima facie offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is clearly made out in
this case.

65. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear any
ground to interfere in the judgment passed by learned trial court. The appeals being devoid of merit
are liable to be dismissed. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and sentence
of the appellants awarded by the trial court is upheld.

66. The appellant Anees is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the remaining period
of his sentence as awarded by the trial court.

67. The appellant Kaluwa was released on bail during the pendency of appeal vide order
dated 26.9.2006 of this Court. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody
forthwith for serving out the rest of sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed
to ensure his arrest and send his report within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.

68. Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned
for compliance and also to the trial court for its intimation.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 16455 Of 2015

Mohd. Arshad Qureshi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Petitioners:
Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri Satish Trivedi

Counsel for Opposite Parties:
Government Advocate, Sri A.K. Mishra, Sri J.P.S. Jaduan
2022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dowry Harassment -
FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act -- Territorial Jurisdiction --
Vague and General Allegations Against Distant Relatives -- All alleged acts of dowry demand and cruelty
committed in New Delhi where husband resided -- FIR lodged at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Aligarh, where
complainant-wife was originally a resident -- police of U.P. had no jurisdiction to investigate matter wholly
confined to Delhi -- four petitioners (two sisters of husband and their husbands) residing in Srinagar, J&K,
implicated without any specific overt act attributed to them -- petitioner no. 8 being a cousin-brother, also a
separate resident, implicated without specific role -- allegations in FIR vague and general in nature, lacking
any specific detail of individual overt acts -- no counter-affidavit filed by respondents to controvert affidavit of
petitioners -- following Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, FIR held liable to be quashed.
(Paras 6-9)

Writ Petition Allowed -
FIR dated 02.06.2015, Case Crime No. 145 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh, and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom,
quashed. (Para 9)

Case Law Discussed:
1. Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A., and perused the
records.

2. Present petition has been filed for direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
FIR dated 2.6.2015 in Case Crime No. 145/2015, Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Aligarh, and for the direction of mandamus
commanding the respondent-State and police for not arresting the petitioners in aforesaid case, and
for any other suitable writ or direction.

3. One Smt. Sadaf Basit (wife of Mohd. Arshad Quaraishi) had lodged FIR with averment
that her marriage was performed on 24.6.2014 with Mohd. Arshad Quaraishi (s/o Riyazuddin,
resident of New Delhi) in accordance with Muslim religious customs. In this marriage, her parents
had given dowry including Honda City car. After marriage, she came to her husband's house, where
from the very beginning her husband, mother-in-law Smt. Shahnaj Begum, father-in-law
Riyazuddin, husband's sisters Smt. Aarshiya Fayaz and Smt. Sabina Rafi, her husband's brother-inlaws Sheikh Fayaz Ahmad and Mohd. Rafi Sheikh, and husband's cousin brother Mohd. Wasim
had started passing comments for insufficiency of dowry and had started regular altercation and
manhandling with her. After one and a half month of marriage, she was sent out ofm house of inlaws, with direction to bring Mercedes car. Thereafter, her husband or his family members had not
come for bringing her back. After about eight months, he came to know that her mother-in-law is
indisposed and was admitted in hospital, then her parents had left her to hospital. But the family
members of her husband had beaten her and expelled from the house. Therefore, she had lodged
report.
5 All. Mohd. Arshad Qureshi & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2023
4. On the basis of said report of informant Smt. Sadaf Basit, FIR in Case Crime No.
145/2015, Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act., P.S. Kotwali
Nagar, Aligarh was lodged against eight persons named in her report. Those eight named persons
had filed present writ petition for quashing the said FIR and direction to respondents for not
arresting the petitioners. The grounds mentioned in writ petition are that immediately after
marriage, respondent no.-3 Smt. Sadaf Basit (informant) had left the house of husband and went
back to her matrimonial home. The allegations contained in FIR are incorrect and no cause of
action ever arose at Aligarh, because entire allegations with regard to alleged demand of dowry and
cruelty are confined and restricted to New Delhi and no allegations have been made about any
alleged harassment or alleged cruelty or any offence in Aligarh. Respondent-informant left her
husband's home out of her own free will and volition. Whole allegations contained in FIR are
vague and general in nature, without furnishing any specific detail or specific detail of any alleged
overt act; but whole of the family members, who live separately from husband and father-in-laws
of informant, have also falsely been implicated. The petitioners no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Aarshiya Fayaz,
Shabina Rafi, Sheikh Fayaz Ahmad and Mohd. Rafi Sheikh) live in Sri Nagar (Jammu & Kashmir)
and have nothing to do with affairs of informant or her husband. The petitioners have been falsely
implicated in present case to subject them to extortion due to vengeance, and the FIR is outcome of
malice. The FIR is devoid of territorial jurisdiction. Due to it fundamental rights of petitioners are
going to be violated, because petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the police. Therefore, they
have filed present writ petition.

5. Notice of this writ petition was served on respondents including the respondent no.-3
(informant of the FIR), but no objection or counter affidavit was filed by any respondent.

6. From uncontroverted affidavits filed on behalf of petitioners and available records, it is
evident that informant was original resident of district Aligarh, U.P., who had married with
petitioner no.-1 Mohd. Arshad Qureshi, resident of K-17, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. If the
contents of FIR are accepted to be true, then all the alleged overt acts were committed by named
accused persons in Delhi. But by FIR, attempt was made to get the matter investigated by the police
of district Aligarh, U.P. Therefore, the police of district Aligarh or U.P. has no jurisdiction to
investigate the matter in question, unless it is specially authorized for ir, which has not been done
so far. From the evidences and uncontroverted affidavits, it is found that the dispute between the
informant and her husband and family members of husband was referred to mediation, which had
failed. In this matter, police had not completed the investigation and no charge-sheet has been filed
so far. There have been very vague and general allegations in FIR of alleged cruelty by husband
and his family members. Four of the petitioners-accused namely, two sisters of husband of
informant (petitioners no. 4 and 5) reside with their husbands (petitioners no. 6 and 7) in Sri Nagar
(Jammu & Kashmir). They were also implicated in present matter for alleged dowry demand and
alleged cruelty. Petitioner no. 8 Mohd. Wasim is not real borther of husband of informant, but he is
relative, and cousin of her husband. He was also implicated in this matter without any specific
overt act. There is uncontroverted affidavit that petitioners no. 4 to 8 reside separately from
husband and in-laws of informant.
2024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10
SCC 741 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"19. Insofar as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt true
that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be
decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the
proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 CrPC wherein it was also alleged
that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the proceedings under
the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its
jurisdiction insofar as the consideration of the case of the appellants is concerned, who are only
brother and sister of the complainant's husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to
have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if
the trial court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to
whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether
that would amount to abuse of process of court.

23. In the instant matter, when the complainant and her husband are divorced as
the complainant wife secured an ex parte decree of divorce, the same could have weighed with the
High Court to consider whether the proceeding initiated prior to the divorce decree was fit to be
pursued in spite of absence of specific allegations at least against the brother and sister of the
complainant's husband and whether continuing with this proceeding could not have amounted to
abuse of process of court. The High Court, however, seems not to have examined these aspects
carefully and has thus sidetracked all these considerations merely on the ground that the territorial
jurisdiction could be raised only before the Magistrate conducting the trial.

24. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the
grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court
should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not.
At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court
to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by
remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is
unwarranted as was held by this Court in Ramesh v. State of T.N. that such a course of remand
would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to prolong the controversy. The facts
in that matter on this aspect were although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged
the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that
the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of
the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a
casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of
process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were
still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima
facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.
5 All. Manoj Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2025
27. The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that
assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a
fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against
them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant
demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these
aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High
Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But
as the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the
complainant's husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to
go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by
the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer
the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose
ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act."

8. Considering the uncontroverted averment of writ petition as well as affidavit supporting
it, the factum of living separately of five petitioners from husband and in-laws of informant, the
lack of jurisdiction of police of U.P. to investigate the matter and the general allegations levelled by
informant in her FIR without allegations of any specific act, and considering the vagueness of
information mentioned in FIR, and in light of verdict mentioned in aforesaid ruling of Hon'ble
Apex Court, the petitioner's case is found believable; and therefore this appears to be a case, in
which petitioner should succeed and FIR should be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The FIR dated 2.6.2015 relating to case crime
no. 145 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh, and the criminal proceedings emanating from it are hereby
quashed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD KUMAR MISRA, J.

Writ C No.- 21018 Of 2016

Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Babu Lal Ram, Sandeep Kumar Singh