Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint alleging dowry harassment. Court declined to go into factual disputes, following precedent that such matters are for trial courts. Application disposed of with direction to consider bail expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14143
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1341 of 2024 Applicant :- Niyaz Amhmad And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
304-B, 323, 202 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The present complaint has been lodged as a counter blast action to the aforesaid F.I.R.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Order Date :- 16.2.2024 Preeti.
Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should go into factual disputes while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C?
Whether the complaint discloses prima facie offences of dowry harassment and cruelty?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh Etc.Referred¶11
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh Etc., 2023 SCC Online 379 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.Referred¶12
Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Niyaz Amhmad And 8 Others
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
