Disposed

Indrajit Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2019CRLP/13528/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed to quash FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court held investigation is required but ordered no arrest of petitioners till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to their cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; petitioners not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to their cooperation.

Indrajit Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13528 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Indrajit Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA for respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Amit Daga for respondent no.4; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 11th May, 2019 registered as Case Crime No.759 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376A and 313 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that on account of matrimonial differences between husband and the wife, who had been in service, by levelling false allegations, the entire family of husband has been implicated. It has been submitted that there is no injury report in support of the allegation and the allegation of sexual assault as against the husband of the victim, by alleging that he, under influence of alcohol, has been subjecting the victim to sexual exploitation is false. It has been submitted that the father-in-law as well as husband had been in defence service.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that the first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶9

Be that as it may, as the allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of cognizable offences, therefore the matter would require investigation. Hence, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the relationship between the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to the petitioners' cooperation in the investigation, they shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.5.2019. Rks.

Indrajit Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit Singh and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Babu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamlesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Monu Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Apoorv Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kirti Prakash @ Gagan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neelam Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others