Disposed

Suresh Dubey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2018CRLP/10593/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the prayer to quash an FIR alleging financial irregularities in a construction contract. However, the court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report, subject to his full cooperation during the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directs investigation shall continue but petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Suresh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10593 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suresh Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samit Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 11.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0016 of 2018, under Sections 409 IPC, P.S. Markundi, District- Chitrakoot.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 4 nine years after the retirement of the petitioner from service falsely alleging commission of financial irregularities by him in collusion with the Construction Agency, which was entrusted the work of constructing the building of Primary Health Centre, Markundi, District- Chitrakoot in the financial year 2007-08. It is further contended that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming, even prima facie indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned FIR, which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶6

Per contra learned AGA submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner and the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶8

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. subject to his extending full co-operation during investigation.

¶9

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 1.5.2018 KU

Suresh Dubey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Dubey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rukhsad Husain Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Kamla Kant Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Adesh Singhal Vs the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 2 Others

Smt. Khusbu Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Suresh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others