Partly allowed

Sarvesh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018CRLP/33252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court declined to quash an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petition was dismissed for Petitioner No. 1 but allowed others to remain at liberty post-charge-sheet with bail considerations if applied within three weeks post-custody.

What did the court decide?

Petition partially allowed. Petitions 2,3,4,5 released; must not be arrested until Police Report. Petitioner 1 dismissed. Petitioners 2,3,4,5 to apply for bail if arrested.

Sarvesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33252 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sarvesh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjeet Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 24.7.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0506 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 roping in the entire family of her husband Sarvesh including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Mausa and Mausi alleging commission of offence u/s under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. He further submitted that apart from bald allegations made in the F.I.R., no evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged crime, and hence the impugned F.I.R., which is a product of malice and bundle of lies, is liable to be quashed.

¶7

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that upon perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence against the petitioners is made out and hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶8

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶9

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of this writ petition with the following conditions:-

¶10

1.The investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.

¶11

2.Qua petitioner no. 1, Sarveshy, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, considering the nature of the allegations, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.11.2018/Noman

Sarvesh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh and 4 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Kamlapat Rai Parshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Bahadur Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another