Dismissed

Abhishek Jain Jain and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2019CRLP/26158/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that prima facie a cognizable offence was made out from the FIR allegations, thus no ground existed for quashing or staying arrest.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to apply for bail before the court below within thirty days.

Abhishek Jain Jain and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26158 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abhishek Jain Jain And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶4

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

¶5

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 16.10.2019 registered as Case Crime No.304 of 2019, under Sections 498-A,323,504,506,307 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pallavpuram, District Meerut.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.4 who has lodged the impugned first information report against the petitioners with absolutely vague and concocted allegations in respect of 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.

¶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

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

¶9

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the petitioners 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.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.12.2019

¶13

M. Tariq

Abhishek Jain Jain and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Jain Jain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Chandra Dev Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others