Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2018CRLP/5591/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a redressal petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 498-A. The Court permitted the investigation to continue without arresting petitioners 2 to 5 until the police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., while dismissing the petition against petitioner no. 1.

What did the court decide?

Investigation shall continue but petitioners 2 to 5 shall not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted; petition against petitioner 1 dismissed.

Manoj Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5591 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Khurshed Alam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Khurshed Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Sahai, 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 23.1.2018, in case crime no.0008 of 2018, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Bhaluani, district Deoria.

¶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 June, 2017. 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 to 5 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 to 5 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.) Order Date :- 7.3.2018 Gaurav

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Yadav and 4 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

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

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Diksha Devi @ Priya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Avinash Rajbhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others