Disposed

Sandeep Vaswani and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2019CRLP/8012/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an FIR in matrimonial and dowry offence matters. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that no arrest be made until the police file their report. Petitioners must cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directing that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Sandeep Vaswani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8012 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sandeep Vaswani And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Dr. Dridayawati, 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.13 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; controversy involved in issue is matrimonial in nature; entire family members have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; 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.

¶9

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present 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 the parties present and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675 , and Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And others (SLP (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017 decided on 27.7.2017) , 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.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.4.2019

¶12

R./

Sandeep Vaswani and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Vaswani 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

Dablu @ Hari Saran and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farzan @ Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surbhi and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nand Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Madusudhan Reddy and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others