Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR involving allegations of cruelty and dowry demands. The High Court held that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out and dismissed the petition.
The relief sought for quashing of the FIR and staying arrest was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3338 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hariom @ Chandra Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0669 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 307 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place, no dowry has been demanded either by him or his family members and allegation of giving Rs. 15 lakh as dowry is false and baseless, allegations are malafide and motivated, hence, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted as per F.I.R. the victim has been treated with cruelty and she had been pushed down from the speeding car as a result of which she sustained serious injuries.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. 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 F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The victim has suffered serious injuries on account of dashing her out of the car. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.2.2019/Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed as the allegations are malafide and no incident took place.
Whether prima facie a cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hariom @ Chandra Prakash
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
