Partly allowed

Suneet Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2018CRLP/4897/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR in a matrimonial dispute involving Sections 498-A and 377 IPC. While ordering discharge of two petitioners from arrest pending police report, the petition regarding the first petitioner was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Two petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; the prayer regarding the first petitioner was dismissed.

Suneet Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4897 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Suneet Pathak And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Home) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri R.K. Rai, 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 writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 20.1.2018, in case crime no.9 of 2018, u/s 498-A, 323, .406, 377/511, 509 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, district Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 was solemnized in the year 2013. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the informant 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 and 3 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing and 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.

¶9

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:

¶10

(i) Investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.2 and 3 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.

¶11

(ii) As far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the petition stand dismissed.

¶12

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Gaurav

Suneet Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneet Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) 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

Gendia Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Gagan Gupta and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Helal Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babli Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anees and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Govt. of U.P and 3 Others