Disposed

Saligram and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR under 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. However, it directed police to follow arrest safeguards under Cr.P.C. Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A before arresting petitioners, effective unless investigation concludes.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR refused; direction to police to comply with arrest safeguards under Cr.P.C. before arrest.

Saligram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37247 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Saligram And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Awasthi 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 learned AGA 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 6.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No.89 of 2018, under Sections 498-A,323,506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Police Thana, District Mathura.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present FIR has been lodged with absolutely false and vague allegations by the respondent no.4 against her husband-petitioner no.1 and entire family members of the petitioner no.1 in respect of ill-treatment meted to her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioners cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioners should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶8

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the FIR, hence the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶9

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioners that they would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.

¶10

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioners is to be effectuated in the aforesaid case in which they are wanted, the concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 .

¶11

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶12

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.12.2018/M. Tariq

Saligram and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saligram and 4 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

Cases cited

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