Allowed

Smt. Vedwati and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018A482/2460/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings against three applicants in a dowry harassment case. Relying on Geeta Mehrotra, the court held that since their role was general and no specific allegations were made against them, the proceedings were liable to be quashed to prevent misuse. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6 in the underlying case are quashed.

Smt. Vedwati and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2460 of 2006

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Vedwati And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Government Advocate,A.K. Awasthi,Manish Tewari

¶4

Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.

¶5

This petition was filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 26.9.2005 and consequential order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2005, under Section 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and further prayed to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

None present on behalf of applicants even in revised list whereas learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 Mr. Atharv Dixit holding brief of Sri Manish Tewari as well as learned AGA for the State are present.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This petition was filed by the six applicants, out of which petition filed by applicant nos. 1, 2 and 5, who were mother-inlaw, father-in-law and husband of opposite party no. 4 Manu Devi, respectively, was dismissed vide order dated 3.3.2006.

¶9

From the perusal of record it can be inferred that there is general allegation against the applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6. The marriage of opposite party no. 4 took place with applicant no. 5 on 20 February, 2002 and there is general allegation against all the applicants for demand of dowry of Rs. 1 Lakh for business purposes and there is general allegation for neglect of wife of

¶10

applicant no. 5. No specific role has been assigned to applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6 and seeing the tendency of the wife to implicate all the family members of the husband, it is apparent that name of applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6 is being included just to pressurize the rest of the family members, i.e. husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law.

¶11

In view of the law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013(1) JIC 1 (SC), seeing the role of applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6, which is general in nature and no specific role has been assigned to them, an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings against the applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6 in the aforesaid case, are liable to be quashed.

¶12

The petition is allowed and criminal proceedings against the applicant nos. 3, 4 and 6 in the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Ranjeet Sahu

Smt. Vedwati and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vedwati and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Dauji Vs State

Sachendra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another