Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2018CRLP/5416/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court permitted investigation to proceed but barred the arrest of petitioners 2 to 6 until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted, while dismissing the plea against petitioner 1.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners 2 to 6 shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Petitioner 1's plea dismissed.

Raj Hussain and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5416 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Hussain And 5 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Babhru Vahan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Sahai, 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 2.8.2017 registered as Case Crime No.145 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Lar, District Deoria.

¶5

It has been submitted by the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 4 was solemnized in the year 2016. After marriage some dispute arose between the husband and wife and petitioner no.1 has also filed divorce petition, hence, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.4 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 to 6, 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 to 6 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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