Partly allowed

Smt. Reena and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020CRLP/1112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR in a dowry harassment case, refusing to stop proceedings entirely but directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners until the charge sheet is filed.

What did the court decide?

Directed State authorities not to take any coercive action against petitioners until charge sheet submission.

Smt. Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1112 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Reena And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

AND

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1442 of 2020

¶6

Petitioner :- Dr. Amit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pavan Kumar,A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi

¶7

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R L Dwivedi, learned State Counsel for the State and Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR dated 6.12.2019 in respect of Crime No.768 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 307, 352 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, lodged by respondent no.4Smt. Cheena Rana against the petitioners and other co-accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that to their information, after lodging the FIR, nothing has been found against them and the prosecution has decided not to proceed further against the petitioners. He submits that even otherwise, petitioners have no relation with the complainant and offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not made out against them. It has been further argued that initially a total false has been cooked up against the petitioners.

¶11

Learned AGA opposes the petition. He, however, does not dispute that nothing has been found against the petitioners in the investigation.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶13

However, we finally dispose of this petition with a direction to the State authorities that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned.

¶14

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioners cooperate in the investigation.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.2.2020 RKK/-

Smt. Reena and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reena and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeej Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Chandrapal and 3 Ors.

Mayank Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanoj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogendra Pratap Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others