Partly allowed

Pramila Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2018CRLP/5565/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act and stay on arrest, the High Court directed the investigation to continue without arresting petitioners 1 and 2 until the police report is submitted, while dismissing the petition against petitioner 3 as the allegations against her appeared credible. The order was disposed of by Krishna Pratap Singh, J

What did the court decide?

Investigation to proceed but Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation; petition against Petitioner No. 3 dism

Pramila Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5565 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramila Jaiswal And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- P.H. Vashishtha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Istyak Khan

¶4

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

¶5

An impleadment application has been filed, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sita Ram Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Istyak Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead Raghvendra Jaiswal son of Ashutosh Jaiswal as petitioner No.3 in the array of the parties, who is the husband of the victim in the present case within the course of the day.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners and with further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 16.02.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0012 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 313 of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Harbansh Mohal, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 roping in the entire family of her husband, petitioner no. 3 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 further been submitted that the allegation regarding

¶10

commission of the offence 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 313 of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is against the petitioner no. 3 alone. 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. 1 and 2 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 :

¶13

(I) Investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.1 and 2 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.

¶14

(ii) As far as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the petition stand dismissed.

¶15

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 8.3.2018 Pr/-

Pramila Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajneesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Haris Husain @ Raja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Pankaj Tyagi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anjali Vs State of U P and 8 Others

Suman Kumari and 7 Othrs. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othrs.