Disposed

Prabhakar @ Pawan Kumar Gupta and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020CRLP/1267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 498A IPC reading with Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court refused to quash the complaint as prima facie offences were made out. However, due to the specific facts, the Court directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, subject to cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie offences made out; FIR not quashed. Petitioners directed not to be arrested till police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with investigation.

Prabhakar @ Pawan Kumar Gupta and 5 Others Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1267 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Prabhakar @ Pawan Kumar Gupta And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aadesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The petitioners in the present writ petition are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. 372 of 2019 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Khuldabad District Allahabad with a further prayer not to arrest them in pursuance of the said first information report.

¶7

As per the F.I.R, the allegation is that the complainant Priya Gupta was married with Pawan Kumar Gupta on 5.5.2018 and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. It is alleged that the in-laws of the complainant were not happy with the dowry and used to demand more dowry and also used to beat her. On 15.8.2019 they have thrown her out of the house after beating her.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations of demand of dowry are wholly false and the entire family has been roped in the present case. It is further submitted that the complainant lived in her matrimonial for 15 months and during this period she has not made any such complaint and only because of some inducement given by her parents she has lodged the present impugned F.I.R. wholly on false and baseless allegations. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed

¶12

that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶13

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of . Order Date :- 13.2.2020

¶14

o.k.

Prabhakar @ Pawan Kumar Gupta and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar @ Pawan Kumar Gupta and 5 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Miraj Vs State of U.P.

Qmar Alam @ Kamar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Seema Rani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Mohan Tripathi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others