Dismissed

Kaleem Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2018CRLP/12132/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR, finding a prima facie cognizable offence existed, but directed the police not to arrest the petitioner until the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is filed, while directing a swift investigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; arrest stayed until filing of police report; investigation directed to be concluded early.

Kaleem Siddiqui 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. - 12132 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kaleem Siddiqui Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶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. 353 of 2018 pending investigation at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi pertaining to the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Station House Officer/police officer not to arrest the petitioner in relation to the first information report referred to above till the filing of the police report as per Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating agency during the course of the investigation.

¶11

The concerned Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 15.5.2018 vinay

Kaleem Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleem Siddiqui 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

Ali Rza and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachchidanand Alias Dayanand Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Chhedi Lal Sharama and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kunal Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

In-Re Vs Pinki Kumar

Gulrana Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others