Uttarakhand High Court
Khurshid D/O Shamim vs State Of Uttarakhand Through The ... on 25 April, 2012
Author: Prafulla C. Pant
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 404 of 2012
1. Khurshid D/o Shamim
R/o L-7 Block K Hazi Colony
Delhi 110025
2. Najma D/o Shamim
R/o 718 Pana Udyan, Narela
New Delhi
3. Shabnam D/o Shamim
R/o 718 Pana Udyan, Narela
New Delhi
4. Habib Khan S/o Shaukat Ali
R/o L-7 Gaffar Manjil 2
Okhla New Delhi
........Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary of
Home, Uttarakhand Govt. Dehradun
2. Smt. Firdos Jahan
W/o Shahroj Siddiqui
D/o Late Mahfooj Ali
R/o Mohalla Tejiyan P.S. Jwalapur
District Hardwar
............ Respondents
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the petitioners.
Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State.
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 7853 of 2011, State vs. Shahroj Siddiqui and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 377, 506, 504 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that all the allegations of cruelty are made in the First Information Report against Shahroj (husband of the complainant) who has died during investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioners Khursid, Nazma, Shabnam are sisters-in-law (NAND), and the petitioner no. 4 Habib Khan is brother-in-law (NANDOI) of the complainant. All of them are residents of Delhi. It is contended that it is total abuse of process of law to implicate the petitioners in the criminal case who did not even live with the complainant and her husband.
4. Admit the petition.
3
5. Learned counsel for the State prays for, and is allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.
6. Issue notice to respondent no. 2 Firdos Jahan who may also file her counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the State, as an interim measure, it is directed that further proceedings of criminal case no. 7853 of 2011, State vs. Shaharoj Siddiqui and others, relating to offences 498A, 377, 506, 504 IPC, and one punishable under section punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar are stayed until further orders of this court. (Stay application no. 441 of 2012, stands disposed of).
9. List after six weeks.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Parul 25.04.2012