Partly allowed

Rajan Patel and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2018CRLP/12119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the FIR despite allegations of malafide intent, finding a prima facie cognizable offense. However, it directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the police file the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and instructed the IO to conclude investigation early.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashed; non-arrest direction granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to be concluded early.

Rajan Patel and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12119 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajan Patel And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmeshwar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is before us with a prayer to quash the first information report in Case Crime No. 53 of 2018 pending investigation at Police Station Kothibhar, District Maharajganj pertaining to the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 394 of Indian Penal Code.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no case is made out against the petitioners with regard to allegations contained in the first information report and the impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intention for the purpose of harassment.

¶8

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has also been pleaded.

¶9

From perusal of the impugned FIR, it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the FIR. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is refused but it certainly requires investigation.

¶10

In view of the above, we do not find any just reason to quash the impugned first information report. However, considering the facts and

¶11

circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Station House Officer/police officer not to arrest the petitioners in relation to the first information report referred to above till the filing of the police report as per Subsection (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating agency during the course of the investigation.

¶12

The concerned Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.5.2018 Arun

Rajan Patel and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Patel and 4 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

Hoshiyar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sheikh Siraj Ali @ Siraj Bangali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanka Rajpoot and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hari Shankar Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gautam Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mozim Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others