Disposed

Monu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019CRLP/24883/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging dowry harassment. The court refused the quash prayer due to lack of cogent reasons but directed police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. referencing Arnesh Kumar before executing an arrest.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; direction issued to police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. before arrest.

Monu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24883 of 2019 Petitioner :- Monu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶3

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

¶4

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 24.09.2019 as Case Crime No.41 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.Mahila Thana, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha).

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.3 while petitioner no.2 is the mother of petitioner no.1. The respondent no.3 has lodged the impugned first information report with absolutely vague and concocted allegations, in respect of ill-treatment meted to her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, in order to cause sheer harassment. Hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶6

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed at the behest of the complainant. If the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner be taken in entirety and charges are found to be proved, the petitioners cannot be awarded sentence of more than 7 years. In this view, the arrest of the petitioners should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶7

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.

¶8

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to quash the FIR, hence the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶9

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioners that

¶10

he would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for, then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.

¶11

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case, arrest of petitioners are to be effectuated in the aforesaid case, in which they are wanted, the concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 .

¶12

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Krishna

Monu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Beg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moizuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

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

Sarswati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shahjad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others