Disposed

Prashant Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2019CRLP/6077/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for quashing of an FIR under sections 498-A and Dowry Prohibition Act, the court refused to quash due to disclosure of cognizable offences. However, to enable the petitioner abroad to approach court for bail, the court ordered no coercive action against him for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against the petitioner shall be taken for a period of six weeks if he surrenders to apply for bail.

Prashant Sharma 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. - 6077 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prashant Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner through his power of attorney holder. It is claimed that petitioner (Prashant Sharma) in connection with his job is in Germany and therefore he has taken help of his power of attorney holder to file this petition on his behalf.

¶7

This petition has been filed for quashing of first information report dated 10th December, 2017, which has been registered at police station Mahila Thana, district Ghaziabad under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

The impugned first information report has been lodged by wife of the petitioner alleging that the informant was married to the petitioner on 4th December, 2016; that in connection with marriage lot of money was spent and gifts, etc. were given; that about a month after marriage, the petitioner left the informant at her parental house and did not come back to take her back; that when it was enquired from the petitioner as to why he was not taking the informant back, the petitioner told the informant that he is already engaged to another woman and in case informant's parents are willing to provide Rs.10 lacs for business, the petitioner may think about bringing back the informant. It is alleged that when demand was not met, the informant was assaulted. It is also alleged that the accused had harassed the informant for less dowry. It has also been alleged that when the informant became pregnant, she was forced to abort.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the allegations are absolutely false and that the informant has herself walked out of her matrimonial house.

¶10

Be that as it may, as the allegations made in the impugned first information report disclose commission of cognizable offences, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner is abroad in connection

¶12

with his job, the police had been trying to attach the property of the petitioner as also harass the family members of the petitioner. He has therefore prayed that some reasonable protection be provided to the petitioner to enable him to come back to India and apply for bail.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that for a period of six weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid case provided within the said period the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and may apply for bail.

¶14

The petition stands disposed of as above.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.4.2019. Rks.

Prashant Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Sharma 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

Saud and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anshu @ Anshu Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Shanker Seth Alias Chhotu Seth and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others