Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2018CRLP/3258/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a dowry harassment FIR. The collegem quash for petitioners 2 to 6 but dismissed the quash petition for petitioner no. 1. Investigation of the case continues.

What did the court decide?

Investigation of the case shall continue, but petitioners 2 to 6 shall not be arrested pending the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to their cooperation. Petition of p

Netrapal Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3258 of 2018 Petitioner :- Netrapal Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Faiz Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Mohd. Faiz, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 23.12.2017 registered as Case Crime No.547 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504,506, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chainpur, District Bareilly.

¶5

It has been submitted by the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 was solemnized for years ago.He further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 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 6, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶6

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.

¶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 6 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.)

¶12

Order Date :- 12.2.2018/NS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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