Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2018CRLP/3023/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR involving dowry harassment allegations, granting partial relief by restricting arrest for three petitioners pending police report while dismissing the petition for the first petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Investigation allowed without arrest for petitioner nos. 2 to 4 till police report; petition dismissed for petitioner no. 1.

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3023 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rahul And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Sri R.K. Mishra, learned brief-holder for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 2.1.2018, in case crime no.01 of 2018, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313, 307, 326 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, district Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶5

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and daughter of respondent no.4 was solemnized in the year 2014. 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 his daughter 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 4 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶6

Per contra learned brief-holder for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 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.

¶7

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:

¶8

(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.

¶9

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

¶10

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 8.2.2018 Gaurav

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Otehrs

Bhola Alias Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhananjai Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Kamla Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others