Partly allowed

Amit Kumar and 5 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024CRLP/650/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under dowry and matrimonial offences. The Court quashed the FIR against second to sixth petitioners as allegations were vague and seated for pressure, while retaining the case against the first petitioner. The Court directed authorities to strictly follow pre-arrest safeguards under BNS 2023 and Supreme Court guidelines before arre

What did the court decide?

FIR quashed against second to sixth petitioners; strict compliance with arrest safeguards mandatory for first petitioner.

Amit Kumar and 5 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167446-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 650 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atmaram Singh,Bhola Nath Yadav,Priyavrat Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 20.11.2023 registered as Case Crime No.111 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Civil Lines, District Prayagraj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of the first petitioner was solemnized with the fourth respondent on 13.12.2022 according to Hindu rites and custom without any dowry. After the marriage, some matrimonial dispute arose and the fourth respondent left the house of her husband. The second and third petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the fourth respondent, respectively. The fourth and fifth petitioners are her brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani) and they are living separately. They have no concern with the family affairs of the fourth respondent and her husband. The present matter relates to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and no cognizable offence is made out against them. As such, it is submitted that the case of the petitioners falls within the ambit of case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of UP and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741. He further submits that all offences, complained of, are punishable only upto seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

¶8

We have carefully examined the record and perused the FIR, which discloses prima facie cognizable offence and no case is made out for quashing the FIR qua the first petitioner. Prima facie, we also observe that the allegations against the second to sixth

¶9

petitioners are vague and just to pressurise the family members, they have been implicated in the instant matter. In view of judgement in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), we are of the prima facie opinion that the FIR is liable to be quashed qua the second to six petitioners but as the alleged offences are punishable with a term upto seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 ( Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others ) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 RKP

¶11

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar and 5 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and 5 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr Mithilesh Gautam vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary (Secondary Eduaction), Government of U.P. and 2 Others

Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology Meerut and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S Lb Electronics Ltd. vs State of Up and 2 Others

Managing Director U P Co. Operative and Another Vs Navneet Ranjan Srivastava and Another

Jeet Ram Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others