Disposed

Usha Devi and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020CRLP/11169/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC and Dowry Prevention Act. Court held that allegations require investigation but, considering relationships, deferred arrest until police report submission if petitioners co-operate.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; arrest deferred until police report submission under Section 173(2) CrPC if petitioners co-operate.

Usha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11169 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Usha Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Akram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 23.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0487 of 2019, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Naugawan, District Amroha.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are mother-in-law, father-in-law, Jethani and Jeth, respectively of the informant (respondent no.3), who has lodged the first information report implicating as many as six persons including her husband. It has been submitted that the marriage between Vipin Kumar (nonpetitioner) and the informant took place in February, 2016. Kallu Singh (petitioner no.2) and his wife (petitioner no.1) had filed a declaratory suit against their son Vipin Kumar (husband of the informant) that they have no relationship with their son Vipin Kumar. It has been submitted that now, maliciously, the entire family of the husband has been implicated by levelling false allegations.

¶8

Be that as it may, whether the allegations are true or false would have to be determined on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation and therefore, as the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶9

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the relationship of the petitioners with the informant, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition by providing that the investigation of the above case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC, provided they co-operate in the investigation.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.10.2020. Rks.

Usha Devi and 3 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asif and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

America Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abdul Karim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madanpal Malik and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others