Partly allowed

Avnish v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2018CRLP/13411/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an F.I.R. under Sections 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act via a criminal writ petition alleging false, malicious allegations with ulterior motives. The High Court declined to quash the F.I.R. but, citing precedent, directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., requiring cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; petitioner to cooperate with investigation.

Avnish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13411 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Avnish Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suraj Kumar Singh 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. 97 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.Chhaubeypur, District- Varanasi.

¶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; petitioner has 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 :- 24.5.2018 Kuldeep

Avnish v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avnish 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

Lakkhi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pranshi Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Archana Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rooby and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Gulfam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others