Disposed

Digvijay Singh @ Baua Thakur Alias Raja Sahab v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2018CRLP/15180/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that the petitioner not be arrested subject to cooperation during investigation until the police report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to not be arrested till police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to cooperating with investigation.

Digvijay Singh @ Baua Thakur Alias Raja Sahab Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15180 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh @ Baua Thakur Alias Raja Sahab Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Court today is kept on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.10.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 614 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 354, 386, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 376, 511 I.P.C. and 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner and the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R., we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to his extending full co-operation during investigation.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.6.2018 KS

Digvijay Singh @ Baua Thakur Alias Raja Sahab v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digvijay Singh @ Baua Thakur Alias Raja Sahab 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. vs Haneef

Waseem Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Bapu @ Golu Kumar Sonkar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

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