Disposed

Gajendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2018CRLP/5380/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition to quash an FIR involving dowry harassment allegations. It ordered that investigation continues but arrests for Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are stayed until the police report is filed. The petition regarding Petitioner No. 1 was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; arrest of Petitioners No. 2 & 3 stayed until police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Petitioner No. 1's petition dismissed.

Gajendra Kumar and 2 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. - 5380 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gajendra Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Neta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri R.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 4.7.2017 registered as Case Crime No.51 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Statioin Mahila Thana, District Hathras.

¶5

It has been submitted by the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and daughter of respondent no.3 was solemnized in the year 2015. He further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 roping the entire family of his daughter's husband, petitioner no. 1 containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against them for demand of dowry and on account of non fulfilment of the alleged demands of dowry his daughter 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 & 3, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶6

Per contra learned AGA for the State 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.

¶7

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:

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 6.3.2018/NS

Gajendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Kumar and 2 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

Sanjeev Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Momin and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Hussain and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.