1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Rahul Chaudhary And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 February, 2019


Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4608 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rahul Chaudhary And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Jagdev Singh
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Jadaun, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 21.07.2018 in respect of Crime No. 247 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 498A, 307, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Haldaur, District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 Rahul Chaudhary was solemnized with Meenakshi, daughter of respondent no. 3 on 09.03.2015 but the couple could not adjust for the reasons best known to them. Meenakshi made an attempt to commit suicide but somehow she was saved and was under treatment in the hospital. It is the petitioners, who afforded the entire expenses. It has been contended that as Meenakshi was not interested to live with the petitioners, on 21.07.2018, a totally false report has been lodged by respondent no. 3 making allegation of the incident dated 05.03.2018. Learned counsel submits that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution. It has been further argued that petitioner no. 2 is a government servant whereas petitioner no. 3 is unmarried 'nanad' of Meenakshi. Learned counsel further submits that if protective order is not passed in favour of the petitioners, chances of amicable settlement would be remote.
On the other hand State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the petition.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.
However, we finally dispose of this petition with a direction to the State authorities that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned.
It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioners cooperate in the investigation.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019 SK
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Rahul Chaudhary And Others vs State Of U P And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

21 February, 2019
  • Pritinker Diwaker
  • Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh