Disposed

Manmohan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2018CRLP/14330/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking to quash an F.I.R. involving domestic relations allegations, the High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed the petitioner not to be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, requiring cooperation with investigations.

What did the court decide?

Direction filed not to be arrested till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Manmohan and 7 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. - 14330 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manmohan And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidit Narayan Mishra 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. 0364 of 2018, under Sections498A, 323, 504, 506,354Ka, 307 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Kotwali Dehat 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; 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 :- 30.5.2018 SP

Manmohan and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan and 7 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

saroj and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sushmi Kumari and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Diskha Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Sanjay Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shadab and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohan Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others