Disposed

Gayatri and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2018CRLP/12053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the FIR under Sections 366, 120B, and 506 IPC but directed that petitioners not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., mandating their cooperation with the investigation. The case was disposed of on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to remain on bail/arrest prevented until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with direction to cooperate in investigation.

Gayatri and 2 Others 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. - 12053 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Gayatri And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak 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. 0167 of 2018, under Section 366, 120B 506 IPC, P.S.- Sahjanawa, District- Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); even though all the petitioners have been named in the FIR, however, much reliance has been placed upon paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition; the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; 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 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 co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.5.2018 Kuldeep

Gayatri and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatri and 2 Others 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

Arti Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sonali Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Othrs.

km. Shahzadi and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

pramila @ pramita Vs State of U.P.

Sonali Arjariya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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