Partly allowed

Shivam Kumar Pandey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024A482/17478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and DP Act. The Court dismissed the application for the husband and parents-in-law, finding a prima facie case. For the brothers-in-law residing in Mumbai, the application was pending consideration, with directions to file counter affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed for applicants 1-3. For applicants 4-5, matter listed for 13.09.2024; no coercive action till then.

Shivam Kumar Pandey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17478 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam Kumar Pandey And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Tiwari,Kamlesh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saroj Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 24.1.2024 and cognizance order dated 28.2.2024, of criminal case No. 302 of 2024 (State Vs. Shivam Kumar Pandey), arising out of case crime no. 157 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of A. C. J. M., Court No. 4, Jaunpur.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicant no. 1 is husband of informant and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law and applicant nos. 4 and 5 are brothers-in-law of the informant. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant levelled against the applicants, are wholly false. Applicant nos. 4 and 5 are residing in Mumbai. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, the informant had gone with applicant but thereafter family members of informant assaulted the applicant. Referring to the

¶9

facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicants.

¶10

Learned counsel for informant and learned AGA have opposed the application and the submitted that there are clear allegations against the accused-applicants that they have harassed the informant on account of dowry. Referring to the allegations made in the first information report and statement of informant, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, informant had gone with applicant no. 1 to her matrimonial home and after that she was harassed and assaulted by the accused persons and she has sustained injuries.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

So far as the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, they are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of informant and there are clear allegations that they have harassed the informant on account of dowry and they used to demand a four wheeler and cash. The informant has also alleged that her jewelery and other articles were also snatched by accused persons.

¶13

Considering the allegations levelled in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3. Hence, the instant application under Section 482 CrPC in respect of applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Shivam Kumar Pandey, Aarti Devi and Jay Prakash Pandey, is hereby dismissed.

¶14

So far as applicant nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they are brothersin-law of the informant and it was submitted that there are general

¶15

allegations against them and they were residing in Mumbai. In respect of applicant nos. 4 and 5, matter requires consideration.

¶16

Counter affidavit to be filed within four weeks by the learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2.

¶17

List on 13.09.2024.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 4 and 5, namely, Sushil and Ambuj Kumar, in Criminal Case No. 302 of 2024 (State Versus Shivam Kumar Pandey and others), arising out of case crime no. 157 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Meerganj, district Jaunpur, pending in the court of A. C. J. M., Room No. 4, Jaunpur.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.7.2024

¶20

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Kumar Pandey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Kumar Pandey and 4 Others 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Chaubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Saket Prasad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Prasad Singh vs State of Up and 6 Others

M/S Haji Nabi Bakash Mohd Saleem vs Goods and Service Tax Council and 4 Others

Smt Manisha Yadav and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Surya Prakash Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another