Partly allowed

Vedu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2019CRLP/38191/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR involving dowry and matrimonial disputes. The bench declined to quash the FIR but directed that petitioners not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, requiring them to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; mandated cooperation with investigation.

Vedu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 38191 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vedu And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0718 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 377, 376, 323, 504, 506, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bhopa, district-Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainantrespondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; there is matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; proceedings of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act are pending; it is no injury case as mentioned in para 22 of the writ petition; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

¶11

the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.1.2019 Faridul

Vedu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedu and 4 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

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Fatima Bi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Km. Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bal Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others