Dismissed

Dheeraj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2020CRLP/3842/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR due to material inconsistencies and typographical errors regarding dates of marriage and family relationships disclosed in the petition and annexures. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition after notifying specific counsel.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file a fresh writ petition after giving notice to the learned counsel for the caveator.

Dheeraj Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3842 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharam Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manish Pandey,Radhey Krishna Pandey

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Mr. Faiz Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no.3 and the learned AGA for the StateRespondents.

¶6

The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the FIR dated 12.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0145 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khergarh, District Firozabad with the further prayer not to arrest them in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

¶7

In the impugned FIR the date of marriage has been mentioned as 07.07.2019 whereas in paragraph 4 of the writ petition the date of marriage has been mentioned as 19.11.2011 but in the complaint, which is stated to have been filed by the petitioner no.1 on 10.10.2019, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, date of marriage has been mentioned as 08.06.2019.

¶8

In the affidavit, sworn by one Biresh Kumar, the deponent has described himself as son-in-law of the petitioners no.2 and 4 and it is also stated by the counsel for the petitioners that he is the husband of the petitioner no.5 whereas in the array of respondents the respondent no.5 is shown as wife of one Pawan Kumar. The deponent has also mentioned himself as being the brother-in-law of the petitioners no.1, 3 and 5 whereas in fact the petitioner no.3 is the wife of Satyaram Singh and the petitioner no.1 is the son of Satyaram Singh, therefore the deponent cannot be the brother-in-law of the petitioner no.3. Likewise if the deponent is the son-in-law of petitioner no.2 he cannot be the son-in-law of petitioner no.4 since petitioner no.4 is the son of petitioner no.2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these mistakes have crept in the petition due to typographical error.

¶10

The writ petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition.

¶11

Certified copy of the impugned FIR may be returned to the counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

We make it clear that in case the petitioners files a fresh writ petition, they shall first give notice to Sri Manish Pandey and Sri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the caveatorrespondent no.3.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.3.2020 N Tiwari

Dheeraj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar and 4 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

Indrajeet Sahani and Another Vs State of U.P.

Balwan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Atul Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Khushi Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanka Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others