Disposed

Sunil Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLP/12701/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the prayer to quash an FIR but granted conditional bail, directing the police to conclude investigation within three months and prohibiting arrest until the police report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., with investigation to be concluded within three months.

Sunil Yadav 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. - 12701 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sunil Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

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.0061 of 2018, under Sections- 323, 354, 363, 498A IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Vindhyachal, district-Mirzapur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is jeth of the first informant, petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 have been described as father-in-law and mother-in-law; much reliance has been placed on the averments made in para nos. 10, 11 and 12 to the writ petition; 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 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.

¶7

Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has strongly opposed the writ petition, nevertheless, the facts remains that the marriage said to be disputed is a subject matter of police investigation.

¶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

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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 petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Radhika

Sunil Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Yadav 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

Swati Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khilafat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Komal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Viany Kumar Alias Yogesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aneeta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sazia Parveen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others