SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Niaz Begum & Anr. vs State & Ors. on 21 February, 2011

Delhi High Court Niaz Begum & Anr. vs State & Ors. on 21 February, 2011Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 27th January, 2011

Date of Order: February 21, 2011

+ W.P(Crl) No. 1137/2007

% 21.02.2011 Niaz Begum & Anr. …Petitioners Versus

State & Ors. …Respondents Counsels:

Mr. Kunwar C.M. Khan and Mr. Vikas Singh for petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State.

Mr. S.D. Ansari for respondent no.3


1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.363 of 2006 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC lodged by the wife/ respondent no.3 herein and for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents for proper investigation as well as action against erring police officials of CAW in accordance with law and directing DCP(South) to hold independent and impartial inquiry. W.P.(Crl.)1137/2007 Page 1 Of 2

2. The challan in this case has already been filed after completion of investigation. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of an FIR are to be exercised by the High Court in rare cases. Once investigation is complete, an FIR cannot be quashed by the High Court on the ground that FIR discloses no involvement of the accused in commission of offence. It is settled law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of facts but it is an information to police to start investigation into the crime and to file a report. Once investigation is complete, the only option available before the petitioners is to argue on charge before the trial court concerned.

3. The petition is accordingly dismissed being not maintainable. February 21, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd

W.P.(Crl.)1137/2007 Page 2 Of 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation