Partly allowed

Rahul Vardhan Dinesh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2018CRLP/26258/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR in a matrimonial dispute. Mediation failed due to non-compliance. The court denied quashing entirely but directed that petitioners 2-4 remain on bail subject to investigation cooperation while dismissing the petition for petitioner 1.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners 2 to 4 not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation; Petition of Petitioner 1 dismissed.

Rahul Vardhan Dinesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26258 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Vardhan Dinesh And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Azhar Hussain

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Azhar Hussain, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 3 and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report dated 31.10.2017, lodged by the opposite party no.3, registered as Case Crime No. 186 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, 420, 294 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra.

¶7

From a perusal of the record it appears that the matter being matrimonial in nature, was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2017. The report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 19.01.2018 is on record from which it is evident that the petitioners have not complied with the order dated 27.11.2017 by which they were required to deposit Rs.15,000/- towards the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the mediation process, hence,the mediation has failed.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 3 was solemnized at 23.11.2016 at Agra. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 roping in the entire family of her husband, petitioner nos. 1 to 4 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. 1 to 4 hence the

¶9

impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra learned AGA for the State 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.

¶11

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:

¶12

(i) Investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 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.

¶13

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

¶14

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 13.3.2018 A.K.Verma

Rahul Vardhan Dinesh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Vardhan Dinesh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kanchan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arjun Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitin Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Saroj and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

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