Dismissed

Km. Usha v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2023CRLP/9455/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an FIR alleging dowry-related offences seeking a stay on action and arrest. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no case made for interference at this stage as factual correctness is for investigation, leaving bail matters open for a separate application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; leave open to apply for anticipatory bail.

Km. Usha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128566-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9455 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Km. Usha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A, for the State respondents.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is commanding the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of alleged FIR dated 18.03.2023 registered as Case Crime No.191 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 304B, 34 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations, and no offences are made out against the petitioner.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for not to take any action in pursuance of aforesaid FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

¶10

The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶11

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory

¶12

bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶13

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.6.2023 Swati

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Usha v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Usha 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagun Shyron @ Sagun Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxman Sahgal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others