Partly allowed

Nitin Kumar and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2018CRLP/5575/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an FIR under Sections 498A IPC and others. Court allowed impleadment of victim's husband.Disposed by directing investigation continuation without arresting petitioners 1-3 until police report submission; petition by petitioner 4 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Invigation to proceed without arrest of petitioners 1-3 until police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; petition by petitioner 4 dismissed.

Nitin Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5575 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Amul Kumar Tyagi

¶4

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

¶5

An impleadment application for impleading the husband of the victim as petitioner in the present petition has been filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record.

¶6

In view of the avernment made in the impleadment application, the impleaadment application is allowed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead the husband of the victim as petitioner in the present petition.

¶8

Office is directed to allot a regular number to the impleadment application filed today.

¶9

Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned FIR dated 2.2.2018 registered as case crime no. 111 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 377 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhaunda, District Meerut.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between petitioner no. 4 and respondent no. 4 was solemnized in the year 2016. Thereafter the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 roping in the entire family of her husband, petitioner no. 4 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. 1 to 3 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and 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.

¶13

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

¶14

of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶15

(i) Investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos. 1 to 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.

¶16

(ii) As far as the petitioner no. 4 is concerned, the petition stand dismissed.

¶17

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 12.3.2018 Shiraz

Nitin Kumar and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar and 2 Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kruna Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kanchan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arjun Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Geeta Aryaamd Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others