Partly allowed

Ashish Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused to quash an FIR under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act lodged due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. While holding prima facie cognizable offences exist, the court ordered interim bail release for two petitioners and directed the lower court to consider regular bail applications expeditiously if surrendered within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused; interim bail granted to two petitioners; directions issued for expeditious hearing of bail applications upon surrender within 30 days.

Ashish Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37243 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 3.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No.14 of 2018, under Sections 498-A,323,504,506,313,354 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Fatehpur.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.3 while others petitioners are the family members of the petitioner no.1.The present FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 with absolutely false and concocted allegations on account of ill-treatment meted to her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed when prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no.3. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the serious offences hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

The petitioner nos.3 and 6, namely, Smt. Swarna Rekha Dwivedi Smt. Vandana Dwivedi shall be released on interim bail till the final disposal of the regular bail application.

¶12

In the light of above observations, this petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 M. Tariq

Ashish Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar and 6 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

Gaurav Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Safayddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others