Disposed

Mamta Yadav @ Soni and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020CRLP/6575/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an FIR under Section 364 IPC based on false allegations. The court refused to quash the FIR but directed recording of statements and prevention of arrest until the charge sheet is filed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing petition refused; directions given to record statements and restrain arrest of petitioner no.2 until FIR report is submitted.

Mamta Yadav @ Soni and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6575 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mamta Yadav @ Soni And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 02.06.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0466 of 2019 under Section 364 IPC, Police Station-Cantt., District-Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1, Mamta Yadav has voluntarily performed marriage with petitioner no.2, Santosh Kumar without any coercion, duress or undue influence according to Hindu Customs and Rites. Both the petitioners are leading happy marital life. Hence the impugned F.I.R. on the basis of false allegations made in the FIR lodged by respondent no.3 who is brother of petitioner no.1 is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA contended that the allegations made against the petitioners cannot be aborted at this stage. There is complicity of the petitioner no.2, who is involved in the commission of serious offence, hence does not deserve any indulgence.

¶9

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner no.2 at this stage hence there is no ground for interfering in the FIR, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is refused.

¶10

However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A., we direct that the Investigating Officer shall record the statements of petitioner no.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also move an application before the C.J.M. concerned within two weeks for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who shall record the same. The Investigating Officer shall provide her full protection. The petitioner no.1 shall not be subjected to any harassment or embarrassment during the intervening period.

¶11

It is further directed that the petitioner no.2 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime till the submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to restraint that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 Manish Himwan

Mamta Yadav @ Soni and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Yadav @ Soni 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

Kurban Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kiran Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Anjul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anas Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others