Partly allowed

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2019CRLP/10425/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash an FIR alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. Petitioner family members were not to be arrested pending police report, subject to cooperation; immediate appearance by some led to bail being considered.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR refused. Arrest of petitioners no. 3 to 7 stayed until police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Bail prayer for petitioners no. 1 & 2 to be considered expeditiously if they appear/su

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10425 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Sharma And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramanuj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 21.2.2019 registered as Case Crime No.57 of 2019, under Sections 498-A,323,354,376 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.4 while other petitioners are the family members of the petitioner no.1.The respondent no.4 has lodged the impugned first information report with absolutely vague and concocted allegations in respect of mental and physical ill-treatment meted to her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the entire family members of the petitioner no.1 have been roped in the present case only in order to cause sheer harassment. Hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the serious offences hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶10

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioner nos.3 to 7 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section

¶11

173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

It is further provided that if the petitioner nos.1 & 2 appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of

¶14

Order Date :- 22.4.2019

¶15

M. Tariq

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Rajan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pappu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ayyub Hafiz @ Jamani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others