Disposed

Mohit Kashyap @ Manish Kashyap and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2018CRLP/13261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR in a matrimonial dispute. However, relying on Supreme Court precedents, it directed that the petitioner(s) not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to arrest petitioner(s) till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to cooperation with investigation.

Mohit Kashyap @ Manish Kashyap and 3 Others Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13261 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohit Kashyap @ Manish Kashyap And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Bihari Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

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. 0485 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kalyanpur, DistrictKanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); controversy involved in issue is matrimonial in nature; entire family members have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; 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.

¶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.

¶9

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present 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 present and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675 , and Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And others (SLP (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017 decided on 27.7.2017) , 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.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.5.2018

¶12

Kuldeep

Mohit Kashyap @ Manish Kashyap and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kashyap @ Manish Kashyap 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwana Parveen @ Rajni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd Waseek and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajai Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kaushal Kumari @ Kaushalya Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanka and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others