Disposed

Lal Bapu @ Golu Kumar Sonkar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2018CRLP/16158/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an F.I.R. under dowry-related IPC provisions as prima facie cognizable offences were made out. However, considering the allegations, the Court directed expeditious bail hearing within thirty days unless the investigation is complete.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the F.I.R. refused; conditional direction for expeditious bail hearing within thirty days given.

Lal Bapu @ Golu Kumar Sonkar and 4 Others Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16158 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Lal Bapu @ Golu Kumar Sonkar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Partap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is kept on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to amend the prayer clause.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Sri Jitendra Partap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 23.1.2018 in Case Crime No. 22 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 307, 325 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.Maduwadeeh, District- Varanasi.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. regarding commission of offence by the petitioners under the aforesaid sections are palpably false and moreover the same do not disclose any cognizable offence. The impugned F.I.R. is thus liable to be quashed.

¶10

From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶11

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶12

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶13

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.6.2018 Shalini

Lal Bapu @ Golu Kumar Sonkar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bapu @ Golu Kumar Sonkar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sonu Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sameer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sageer @ Kallan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others