SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(All) 16276

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SHRI ASHOK JAIN AND 2 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
CRLP 1825/2022



Advocates:
['TARUN AGRAWAL', '', 'PRABHASH PANDEY', 'G A', '', 'PANDEY BALKRISHNA', 'ANIL KUMAR SINGH', 'SANJEEV KUMAR']

Court No. - 44

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1825 of 2022

Petitioner :- Shri Ashok Jain And 2 Others

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

Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Prabhash Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh,Pandey

Balkrishna,Sanjeev Kumar

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First

Information Report registered as Case Crime No.8 of 2022, under

Sections- 498-A, 376, 377. 323, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry

Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Prayagraj.

It is alleged that there is a matrimonial dispute and the pending

dispute can be resolved by way of mediation.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant stating

that the wife is not willing to opt for mediation.

We have perused the First Information Report in which serious

allegations are made against the husband and other family members.

Correctness or otherwise of such allegations can not be examined in

proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the first

instance. Even otherwise the husband has also initiated proceeding

under Section 12 for dissolution of marriage. We are, therefore, of

the view that the parties must be left to resolve the differences in

appropriate forum. Since, prima facie, allegation with regard to

commissioning of cognizable offence is disclosed therefore the

F.I.R. can not be quashed in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib

Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779

and

Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,

(2021) SCC Online SC 315.

Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the

judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar and Others

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; 2017, Vol-13, SCC 369,

Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor; 2013, Vol-3,

SCC 330 to submit that such proceedings ought to be quashed even

after the prosecutrix has supported the F.I.R. allegations. So far as to

the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar and

Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Supra) is

concerned, the dispute was in respect of financial transaction

between the parties and the Supreme Court, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, came to a conclusion that the criminal

proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. This judgement

does not help the cause of the present petition.

So far as the judgement passed in Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs.

Madan Lal Kapoor (Supra) is concerned, the court while

examining the legality of the order passed by the High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that the allegations do

not inspire confidence. The proceedings arose out of an order passed

in discharge proceeding. These two judgements are clearly

distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the petitioners have prayed for

quashing of the F.I.R. at the threshold and the evidence is yet to be

collected in the matter. Law is well settled that the court has to be

circumspect in examining the challenge to the F.I.R. at the threshold

and primacy has to be given to the allegations made in the F.I.R. at

this stage. Since in the F.I.R. allegations are specific and the

evidence is yet to be gathered in the matter, we would not be

justified in quashing the F.I.R. in view of the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above two cases.

Prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is declined and the writ petition is,

accordingly, dismissed.

Before concluding we may observe that our observations in the

instant order are restricted to the challenge made to the F.I.R. and

would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in

proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Order Date :- 3.3.2022

Haseen U.

Digitally signed by HASEENUDDIN

Date: 2022.03.03 17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top