Partly allowed

Vivek Mathur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2018CRLP/2420/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha and Krishna Pratap Singh, JJ. disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR in a dowry case. The petitioners (husband and in-laws apart from the wife) argued lack of evidence. The court directed police to investigate without arresting petitioners 2-5 until the police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted, while dismissing the petition as to the wife (petitioner

What did the court decide?

Investigation to proceed but petitioners 2 to 5 not to be arrested till police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Petition dismissed as to petitioner 1.

Vivek Mathur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2420 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vivek Mathur And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri D.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 25.11.2017, in case crime no.1569 of 2017, u/s 498-A, 323, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.4 was solemnized in the year 2016. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the informant roping in the entire family of her husband, petitioner no. 1 containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against them that they were demanding dowry from her and her parents and on account of non fulfilment of the alleged demands of dowry she was being tortured and maltreated by them in her matrimonial home. It has next been submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity in the commission of the alleged offence qua the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR as well as the other material brought on record, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶10

(i) Investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.2 to 5 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to their cooperation during investigation.

¶11

(ii) As far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the petition stand dismissed.

¶12

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 2.2.2018 Gaurav

Vivek Mathur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Mathur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tasleem and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narayan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. 3 Others

Rajeshwari Sahu and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prakashi Devi and 5 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.