Synopsis: The Court was told that the allegations were false and fabricated because the complainant was the wife of the petitioner and was six years older than the petitioner and this was her second marriage.
Recently, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash a FIR against a husband who posted nude pictures on WhatsApp of his own wife.
Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal told the bench that a cognizable offence was committed.
The Court heard a petition filed by the husband who sought quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) for offences pursuant to Sections 270, 313, 323, 376D and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
The plea further sought instructions to give the petitioner protection from arrest during the course of the investigation.
The Court was informed that the allegations were false and fabricated because the complainant was the wife of the petitioner and was six years older than him, and this was her second marriage.
It was added that false and concocted grounds were taken to lodge FIR by overlooking all of these aspects.
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Jata Shankar Pandey, argued that the FIR had been lodged with a view to obtaining the petitioner’s undue financial gains.
Additional Government Advocate Gambhir Singh argued it that does not constitute a valid ground to quash the FIR merely because the petitioner was the informant’s husband.
The bench clarified, relying on the rules laid out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, that there could be no interference with the investigation or order to stay under arrest unless the cognizable offence was not ex-facie discernible from the charges contained in the FIR or there was some statutory restriction on the police’s authority to investigate a case.
In addition, it could not, prima facie, be said from the perusal of the FIR that no cognizable offence was made, the Court said.
Consequently, there was no ground to quash the FIR or stay the petitioner’s arrest, and the Court concluded that the petition was dismissed.