Disposed

Prashant and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2018CRLP/11364/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR registered under Section 498A IPC. Instead, it directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the submittal of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, while directing them to cooperate with the investigation and authorities to conclude it ASAP.

What did the court decide?

Stay on arrest of petitioners pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC; direction to cooperate with investigation.

Prashant and 4 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11364 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Prashant And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No.192 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shikohabad, district Firozabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 4; the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.5.2018

¶13

T.S.

Prashant and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant and 4 Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

smt. Kiran and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rubi Jahan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashish Singh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rekha and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Darshan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju @ Lucky and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others