Disposed

Sanjay and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2018CRLP/2832/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 376 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute, the court directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, while mandating cooperation with the investigation. The petition was finally disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with investigation.

Sanjay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2832 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjay And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Chaman Aara Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Ms. Chaman Aara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikash Sahai, learned counsel for the State.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 08.09.2017, registered at Case Crime No. 0220 of 2017, under Section 376 IPC, which has been subsequent added (earlier FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 377, 313, 354, 307, 323, 504, 506, of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act), Police Station Dehli Gate, District Meerut.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are Dewar and Nandoi of the respondent no.3. The co-accused has challenged the impugned FIR and filed a Writ Petition No.20882 of 2017(Ajay and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and others), which is connected with the present petition and Sri Prabhat Chandra Mishra, learned counsel, who has filed the said petition is also present. He states that though the matter was referred to the mediation centre, but the amount was not deposited by the husband, Ajay, in compliance of the Court's order dated 05.10.2017, hence the notices could not be issued. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that there was a matrimonial dispute between the respondent no.3 and her husband, Ajay. Statement of the victim girl/wife was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she has made allegations of rape against the two petitioners, who are the closed relatives of her husband, but the victim girl/wife was not medically examined.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but they shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶8

With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

¶9

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 12.2.2018/VKG

Sanjay and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohkam and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and 3 Ors.

Azhar Ahmad Jafari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sanfeeta and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Netrapal Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Malti Devi and Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others