Partly allowed

Ankush Jindal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020CRLP/9651/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A IPC alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that petitioners not be arrested pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., with a mandate to conclude investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to not arrest petitioners pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to conclude within three months.

Ankush Jindal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9651 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ankush Jindal And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jainendra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned F. I. R. dated 23.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0499 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 and 377 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961, Police Station NOIDA Secton-20, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

As per the F.I.R, the allegation is that the petitioner No.1 is a citizen of Australia. An F.I.R. was lodged on 23.04.2018 by the opposite party no.5, who is mother of opposite party No.4 Mayuri in India. On 27.04.2016, marriage was solemnized between opposite party No.4 Mayuri Gupta and Ankush Jindal, petitioner No.1 and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. From 01.12.2016 to 05.12.2016 her daughter lived at her matrimonial house in Haryana, but her in-laws' behaviour was not good with her. On 10.12.2016 her daughter went to Australia to live with her husband where her husband was also not happy with the dowry and used to torture Mayuri and made demand for more dowry and also used to beat her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 had filed Divorce Petition on 05.03.2018 bearing File No. (P) MLC2334/2018 Ankush Jindal and Gayuri Gupta under the provisions of Family Law Act, 1975 before Deputy Registrar Russel at the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, in which on 24.05.2018, decree of divorce has also been granted by the Court in Australia, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition. It is further submitted that after filing of the divorce case on 05.03.2018 in Australia, the present impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of Mayuri Gupta in India on 23.04.2018 against the petitioner No.1 and his family member s on wholly false allegations. Apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the

¶9

petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶11

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶12

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Pr/-

Ankush Jindal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Jindal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Kasturi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Nagma and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Rajan Garg and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Singh Yadav @ Gauri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Lal Vs State of U P and 3 Others