Partly allowed

Ram Patal Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2018CRLP/3586/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous writ petition sought quashing of an FIR alleging dowry harassment against the petitioners. The High Court rejected the request to quash but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the submission of the police report, instead requiring them to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition partially allowed; petitioners not to be arrested till submission of police report; order to cooperate with investigation.

Ram Patal Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3586 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Patal Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 5.8.2017, registered as Case Crime No.965 of 2017, u/s 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lankar, district Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner are in-laws of respondent no.3. The marriage between the son of petitioner no.1 namely Sanjeev Yadav @ Sanju and respondent no.3 was solemnized in the year 2011. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 roping in the entire family of her husband 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. Hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

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

¶9

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 shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶10

With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

The case of the petitioners is distinguishable from the case of son of petitioner no.1 namely Sanjeev Yadav @ Sanju.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 15.2.2018 Gaurav

Ram Patal Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Patal Yadav 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

Sapna and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anwar @ Anwarul HUDA and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Hari Singh Vs C.B.I, a.C.B., Ghaziabad

Nazneen Bano and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Kumar @ Bali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Faizal Attari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others