Disposed

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2018CRLP/11421/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition challenging an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The court declined to quash the FIR but directed the petitioner not to be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC is submitted. Police were directed to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested till submission of report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11421 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Maya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Dubey,Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) 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. 78 of 2018, under Section 363, 366 IPC, P.S.- Patherwa, District- Kushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; even though the petitioner has been named in the FIR, however, in the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., copy of which has been annexed at page no. 19 of the writ petition, the allegation, if any, has been made against Tarkeshwar Giri; no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner(s) 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

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present 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, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.5.2018

¶12

Kuldeep

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Radha @ Gunjan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Amreen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others