Allahabad High Court
Prasashant Bhalla And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9963-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 624 of 2024
Petitioner :- Prasashant Bhalla And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh K. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. A copy of the statement recorded of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. produced before this Court by learned AGA is taken on record.
2. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Arun Kumar Singh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for State-respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Arun Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
4. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the first information report dated 19.01.2024 at Case Crime No.0024 of 2024 under Sections 376, 328, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow and with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that sexual relationship between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.4 was consensual in nature as is evident from the perusal of the impugned FIR itself. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant is a fraud lady as her date of birth mentioned in her bio-data in the matrimonial website is different from her actual date of birth and she has wrongly mentioned that she is a social activist having an income of Rs.1 lakh per year.
6. The marriage of the informant with the petitioner no.1 was fixed and she willingly went for shopping with the petitioner no.1 at Ujjain and Delhi. Now the petitioner no.1 and his family members have been falsely implicated alleging that a huge demand of Rs.15 lakhs as dowry has been made by the family members of petitioner no.1 for actual wedding to be performed between petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.4.
7. This Court has gone through the impugned FIR and also the statement recorded of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and finds that the question of relationship being consensual in nature and having later on soured, for reasons best known to the petitioners and opposite party no.4, cannot be considered at this stage where this Court is only concerned with the statement as made in the FIR and whether they make out a cognizable offence or not.
8. It appears that family members of both the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.4 were involved in the matter and they had also agreed to the marriage of petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.4, but due to huge demand of dowry parents of opposite party no.4 could not fulfill such demands and the petitioner no.1 stepped back from his promise to marry the opposite party no.4.
9. Whether the promise to marry was made with the actual intention of marrying the opposite party no.4 can only be evaluated after evidence is collected by the trial Court concerned.
10. This Court, having gone through the papers annexed along with the writ petition and also the instructions sent by Investigating Officer through the learned AGA shows no good ground to show interference as prayed in this petition so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned.
11. The writ petition is dismissed so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned.
12. So far as petitioner nos.2 to 6 are concerned, they are family members and relatives of petitioner no.1 and the only allegation against them is of demand of dowry and the criminal intimidation for which all the offences that are now being invoked against them carry sentence of upto 7 years of imprisonment and they are entitled for benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
13. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition so far as petitioner nos.2 to 6 are concerned, with the direction to the police authorities/ Investigating Officer concerned to follow the mandate of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and also the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024
Arnima
