Dismissed

Dr Sudhir Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022A482/1347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence requiring investigation, noting that a charge-sheet had been filed and the dispute had merit.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2020 and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.944 of 2021 dismissed.

Dr Sudhir Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1347 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dr Sudhir Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2020 in Case Crime No.11 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana (Saifai), District Etawah and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.944 of 2021 (State Vs. Rahul Kumar and others), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Offence against the women) Etawah.

¶6

It is argued that the victim and her husband are living separately from the present applicants. The applicant no.2 Smt. Shivkanti Devi is a heart patient. The documents regarding her treatments and her admission (in hospital) have been filed on record. The applicants have deposited Rs. 20,000/-, each as premium of L.I.C. in the name of their two grand daughters. No medical report has been filed on record with regard to sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. The allegations against the applicants are general so the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings is made.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and contended that the first information report and the statements of the witnesses are on record. There is specific allegation against both the applicants with respect to the atrocities against the daughter-inlaw.

¶8

From perusal of the first information report, it is clear that the allegation is of harassment for dowry. It is also mentioned that during this harassment and daily marpeet, she was thrown out of the house during her pregnancy. All her jewellery and belongings were kept by her in-laws. The victim is living with her parents now.

¶9

It is an admitted fact that the daughter-in-law of the applicants is living separately alongwith her one minor daughter. The fact is not opposed that the victim was pregnant at the time of leaving the house of her husband. Two electricity bills have been filed on record with regard to separate living. The

¶10

applicant no.2 is a heart patient. The documents of her treatments are on record. The receipt of premium of LIC around Rs. 40,000/- deposited by the applicants is also on record. So far as the medical bills are concerned these all are of the year 2021 i.e. the date after filing of first information report in the year 2020. So far as the electricity bills are concerned, the meters may be separated but the address giving in the bills is the same.

¶11

When, the learned counsel for the applicants was asked for mediation, it was answered by their counsel that their son (husband) lives separately from them. It is not possible for the applicants to mediate the dispute between the husband and wife.

¶12

The F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. In the statement of victim, the specific roles of these applicants in atrocities upon her have been mentioned. Under jurisdiction 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not supposed to enter into the facts of the case.

¶13

In my opinion, the first information report prima facie shows a cognizable offence to be made out against the applicants. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, there is no good ground to quash the charge-sheet.

¶14

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Radhika

¶16

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.02.08 12:28:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Sudhir Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sudhir Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachcha Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rizwan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Sabana Vs State of U.P and Another

Rameshchandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Komal Kishore Singh Vs State of U.P and 3 Others