Allowed

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

Allahabad HC10 May 2018CRLP/12106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed to quash an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC alleging false and motivated charges by the complainant, the court applied the law laid down in Sachin Pawar and directed that no coercive action be taken pending the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while ensuring fair investigation without delay.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR was set aside with directions to the police to conduct a fair trial and submit the investigation report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. within three months without initiating coercive ac

Balihar Singh and 3 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. - 12106 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Balihar Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Sandeep Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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.751/2017 under Section- 363, 366 IPC P.S.- Bilaspur district- Rampur.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being disposed of.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; 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. Further submission is that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are major and they have also solemnized marriage out of their own sweet will without any pressure, threat or coercion and they are living happily as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 - Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P. , decided on 02.08.2013. Reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos.6 to 9 to the writ petition.

¶10

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.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 - Sachin Pawar Vs. State of U.P. , decided on 02.08.2013 , no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed off finally with the following directions, at this stage itself :-

¶12

(a) Till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., no coercive action shall be taken or initiated against the petitioners, however they shall participate and cooperate with the investigation;

¶13

(b) Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned SSP/SP through the office of Government Advocate of this Court, who shall personally look into the matter and thereafter shall ensure that fair investigation is done in accordance with law without any whims, caprice or personal notion of morality;

¶14

(c) The police authorities are directed to investigate the matter fairly, expeditiously and submit the report as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from today keeping in view the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) rendered in the cases of Vishal Jaiswal And Another v. State of U.P. and Others passed on 26.8.2016 in Misc. Bench No. 10724 of 2016 and Shaheen Parveen And Another vs. State of U.P. and Orthers passed in writ petition no. 359 (M/B) of 2015 and by the Apex Court in the cases of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (6) SCC 396 (2014) and Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India passed in writ petition (civil) no. 231 of 2010.

¶15

(d) Liberty is also given to the respondents that if anyone of them has any grievance with this order, he/she may move recall application in the present proceedings itself;

¶16

(e) It is also being made clear that if the investigation has been completed and the police has already submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the present order will not be given effect to.

¶17

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off finally.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.5.2018 Anand

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balihar Singh and 3 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

Cases cited

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

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