Disposed

Shraddha and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020CRLP/4297/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, the court rejected quashing criminal proceedings despite admitting marriage was consensual and petitioners were major. The court stayed coercive action pending a charge-sheet submission contingent on petitioners' cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive action against petitioners until submission of charge-sheet under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C., conditional on their cooperation in investigation.

Shraddha and Another 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. - 4297 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shraddha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shabana Nizam

¶4

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

¶5

Sri Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Shukla, learned AGA for the State and Sri Amir Nizam, under the authority of Smt. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 13.02.2020 lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioners in respect of Crime No.0032 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have performed marriage on 18.02.2020 and marriage was with the consent of both the parties. It has been argued that as per High School Certificate, date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 10.05.1999 and on the date of performing marriage, she was major. Even if as per Aadhar Card, petitioner no.1 was major on the date of marriage. He submits that petitioners have every right to live happy married life .

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents though opposes, however, learned counsel for respondent no.3 admits that petitioner no.1 is major.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the

¶10

petitioners, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 Ajeet/RK

Shraddha and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shraddha and Another 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

Muzaffar Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Palat Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Medhavi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shariq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajan @ Rajachandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others