Partly allowed

Anuj Kumar Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2020CRLP/10225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR alleging dowry harassment and domestic violence. The Court held prima facie offences were made out but directed that petitioners not be arrested until the police submit the Section 173(2) report.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused; arrest of petitioners stayed until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Anuj Kumar Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10225 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Shanker Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Jai Shankar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 18.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No.43 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 506, 294 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the first information report.

¶6

The allegations, as per the F.I.R. are that the marriage of the informant- Jyoti was solemnized with Anuj Kumar Singh, petitioner no.1 on 29.01.2015 and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but the in-laws of the informant were not satisfied with the dowry and demanded additional dowry. It is further alleged that one day during the dispute between husband and wife the petitioner no.4-Jeth of the informant hit her in the abdomen at that time she was pregnant. It is further alleged that because of non fulfilment of the demand of dowry the petitioners have started torturing the informant and on 14.06.2019 they have committed marpeet with her and ousted her from the house.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations. It is further submitted that whole family of the petitioner no. 1 has been roped by the informant in the present impugned F.I.R. making false and baseless allegations, hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶8

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.

¶9

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do

¶10

not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, 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 within three months from the date of production of computerized/net copy of the order.

¶12

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.10.2020 N Tiwari

Anuj Kumar Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Ajay Kumar @ Dharmendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalyani @ Deeksha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhirendra Singh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Jain and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Farina Bi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others