Disposed

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

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLP/12745/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the F.I.R. in a matrimonial dispute but directed that the petitioner(s) not be arrested until the police submit the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while requiring cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed that petitioner(s) shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Viany Kumar Alias Yogesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12745 of 2018 Petitioner :- Viany Kumar Alias Yogesh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶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. 97 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 307 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Anoopshahar District Bulandshahar.

¶6

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; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; it is no injury case; 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, 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 police authorities shall conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 SP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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