ABHISHEK SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed with a prayer that the First Information Report dtd. 14/4/2021 under Sec. 498-A, 323, 506, 406, 342, 313, 351 I.P.C. and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed. A further prayer has been made that the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid First Information Report be not arrested.

(2.) For the decision of controversy, the facts mentioned in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7081 of 2021 are being taken into consideration.

(3.) A perusal of the First Information Report shows that the respondent no.4 had married the petitioner on 6/5/2011 at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. This marriage was also got registered as per law. It has been alleged in the First Information Report that since the inception of the marriage, the petitioner used to forcefully take-away the salaries of respondent no.4 and in fact he had forced the respondent no.4 to transfer almost Rs.2,00,000.00 to clear off his educational loans. He had further forced the respondent no.4 to give Rs.80,000.00 to pay off some other loan. It has been alleged that the petitioner regularly used to transfer various amounts from the accounts of respondent no.4 to his accounts to pursue his higher studies in BITS Pilani. Respondent no.4 has stated that the petitioner had forced her to leave her job in India and to go to the USA on an H4 visa and had made her to work in the USA online despite the fact that the visa did not permit her to do so. It has been alleged in the First Information Report that despite the fact that respondent no.4 desired to pursue her higher studies in Pepperdine University, the petitioner had restrained her from studying. During their stay as husband and wife in the USA, in June, 2016, the respondent no.4 had got pregnant but because of the fact that the petitioner had pushed her, she had fallen-down and resultantly a miscarriage had taken place. Subsequently, in 2017, the respondent no.4 again got pregnant but during the pregnancy, it has been alleged, the petitioner had never cared for her and, therefore, from May 2017 to August 2017, the respondent no.4 stayed in India. It has been alleged that despite the fact that the husband did not care for the respondent no.4, she went back to USA to save her marriage for the sake of her child which she was bearing. It has also been stated that despite requests from the in-laws that they may return her Stridhan, the same was not returned to her. Subsequently, when the respondent no.4 had gone back to USA and the child, was born, the petitioner, it has been alleged, did not take care of the respondent no.4 and did not even take any paternity leave to take care of the child. On top of that it has been alleged that the parents of the petitioner also came to USA and the respondent no.4 was required to conduct the household chores. In June 2018, the opposite party no.4 flew down to India once again with her son and in the following July, the petitioner sent her a notice for divorce. Thereafter, to save the marriage she again flew back in August 2018 to enquire why all the cruelty was being perpetrated. It has been alleged that the petitioner had throughout been ignoring the respondent no.4. In the USA the petitioner had cancelled all the credit cards which were there with the respondent no.4. The respondent no. 4 and her son were made to live in a state of penury without any medical support. Despite the fact the parents of the respondent no. 4 had sent money, she was not allowed to pursue her studies. At times, she was closed in the bath room and was beaten. When the respondent no.4 had desired the admission of the young child in a day-care centre, the petitioner had denied the same. It has been alleged in the First Information Report that when the respondent no.4 on 15/3/2019 had fallen ill, she had to herself go to the hospital and in the hospital when there was no money with her, the emergency contact people in USA suggested her that she should go back to India. It has been alleged that after that she came back to India where she filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. It has been alleged that behind the back of respondent no.4, the petitioner had also filed a case for divorce. When the respondent no.4 was in India, on 26/2/2021, two persons had come to the house of respondent no.4 and had threatened her and her parents to withdraw the cases otherwise they would kill both, the parents and the son of respondent no.4.