Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 May 2018CRLP/11425/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, allowed the petition and quashed an FIR registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC on the grounds that it was based on misconception and misguidance, preventing further investigation as an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR dated 15.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0118 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366 IPC is quashed.

Pawan Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11425 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar,Gajendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 15.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0118 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Jasrana, District Firozabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though all the petitioner have been named in the FIR, however, much reliance has been placed upon paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4, has filed a short counter affidavit. The affidavit is that of Devendra Singh, who himself is the first informant of the present case. It has been mentioned in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the short counter affidavit that the FIR has been lodged due to some misconception and misguidance of villagers.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the affidavit given on behalf of respondent no. 4 no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court any further and in permitting the investigation to continue in pursuance of impugned FIR. It would be nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR dated 15.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0118 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Jasrana, District Firozabad is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶11

This order has been passed in the presence of learned counsel for all the parties concerned.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.5.2018

¶13

Kuldeep

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar and 3 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

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

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