Partly allowed

Nitin Upadhyay and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020CRLP/7052/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court refused to quash an FIR alleging dowry-related offences under Sections 498-A and 147 IPC. However, it directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the police report is submitted, conditional on their cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the FIR was refused; however, direction was given not to arrest petitioners until the police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Nitin Upadhyay and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7052 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Nitin Upadhyay And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dashrath Lal Dwivedi,Hanuman Kinkar,Shashi Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 22.8.2019 registered as Case Crime No.696 of 2019, under Sections 147,498-A,323,506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.4 is the wife of the petitioner no.1 while other petitioners are her in laws.The marriage of the petitioner no.1 was solemnized with the respondent no.4 in the year 2017. They were living happy marital life. The respondent no. no.4 has lodged the impugned first information report with absolutely vague and concocted allegations in respect of ill-treatment meted to her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the entire family members of the petitioner no.1 have been roped in the present case only in order to cause sheer harassment. Hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

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

¶9

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable

¶10

offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, 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 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 they shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 M. Tariq

Nitin Upadhyay and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Upadhyay 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bramhdev Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devang Tayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akeel and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others