Dismissed

Tapesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2020CRLP/8224/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR under Sections 498A and dowry laws, deeming it cognizable and requiring investigation. However, the Court stayed arrest of petitioners pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; arrest of petitioners stayed till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. if they cooperate.

Tapesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8224 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Tapesh Kumar Mishra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Tiwari Deva Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 13.06.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0356 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 294, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the allegations made in the impugned first information report disclose commission of cognizable offence but the allegations are absolutely false. The petitioner no.1 was married to the respondent no.3 in the year 2016 but during the course of marriage matrimonial differences arose between them and now false allegations have been levelled to pressurize the husband's family for extracting a favourable settlement. It has also been alleged that the father of the informant is a retired police personnel and is utilizing his influence for creating pressure upon the petitioner.

¶8

Be that as it may, as the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence the matter would have to be investigated and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶9

However, considering the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but petitioners shall not be arrested in the above case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. provided they cooperate in the investigation.

¶10

Order Date :- 28.8.2020 Rahul.

Tapesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapesh Kumar Mishra and 2 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

Udham Singh Yadav @ Yuvraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nirdesh Alias Nirali and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt.Sheelu Soni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nand Kishore and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pappu Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nirvesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others