Disposed

Sangeeta Agrawal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2018CRLP/13842/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment. However, invoking precedent, it directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the police submit their final report, while obligating them to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners not to be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and to cooperate with investigation.

Sangeeta Agrawal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13842 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sangeeta Agrawal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Tiwar

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 79 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Dhampur District Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that even though all the petitioners have been named in the FIR but nevertheless the fact remains that they are mother in law, father in law and Dewar of the deceased; husband is not party and he is already in jail; cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and viscera has been preserved; the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainantrespondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner(s) in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SP

Sangeeta Agrawal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Agrawal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt. Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anoop Singh Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Neelam Porwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amvika Prasad Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anjali Kuamri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Versa and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.