Sanjeev Jaiswal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sanjeev Jaiswal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused qua petitioner no. 1; he is directed to surrender before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail (bail application to be considered per Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh), failing which coercive action follows and no further time will be given; petitioner nos. 2 to 5 limb kept pending with notices, counter affidavits (four weeks) and rejoinder (two weeks), listing after six weeks; respondents restrained from arresting the petitioners pursuant to the F.I.R. till the next date of listing or till cognizance on the police report under Section 193(2) B.N.S.S., whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. dated 20.05.2025 (Case Crime No.0541 of 2025, P.S. Kotwali, Deoria, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 85, 74, 76 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

From the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

Submissions at the bar concern disputed questions of fact which this Court will not adjudicate; only a prima facie view is to be taken in the light of the Supreme Court benchmarks (R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical), and the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.ratio¶13
If petitioner no. 1 (husband, Sanjeev Jaiswal) appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law in Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶14
With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13237 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 64; Hon'ble Siddharth and Hon'ble Harvir Singh, JJ.; order dated 20.6.2025) sought quashing of the F.I.R. dated 20.05.2025, Case Crime No.0541 of 2025, u/Ss. 115(2), 352, 351(2), 85, 74, 76 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria. Qua petitioner no. 1 (husband, Sanjeev Jaiswal): prayer for quashing refused - a prima facie offence exists; submissions raising disputed questions of fact were not adjudicated, the Court confining itself to a prima facie view in the light of R.P. Kapur (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (Para-10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), noting available discharge remedies u/S. 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C.; petitioner directed to surrender within 60 days and apply for bail, bail application to be decided per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); coercive action on default, with no further time; that limb finally disposed of. Qua petitioner nos. 2 to 5 (family members alleged to have been roped in on general allegations; counsel invoked Geeta Mehrotra, 2012 (10) SCC 741, and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam, 2022(6) SCC 5991): notices issued, counter affidavits within four weeks, rejoinder within two weeks thereafter, case listed after six weeks; respondents restrained from arresting the petitioners pursuant to the F.I.R. till the next date of listing or till cognizance on the police report u/S. 193(2) B.N.S.S., whichever is earlier.