SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anuj Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 March, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 4415 of 2020

Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar And 2 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

Hon’ble Ali Zamin,J.

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

The petitioners in the present writ petition are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No.1134 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad with a further prayer not to arrest him in pursuance of the said first information report.

Brief facts of the case as per the F.I.R. are that the marriage of the informant’s sister- Arti was solemnized with petitioner no.1 in April, 2003 according to Hindu rituals and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but the husband and in-laws of the daughter of the informant were not satisfied with the dowry and from the time of marriage they were beating and torturing his sister and they demanded more dowry. Informant sent a notice on 18.10.2019, due to which, they being annoyed on 25.10.2019 came to his house and committed ‘Marpeet’ and threatened to dire consequences.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed so far as the petitioner no.1-Anuj Kumar is concerned, who is the husband of the informant.

However, it is provided that if the petitioner no.1 appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

So far as the petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 17.3.2020

MAA/-

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation