Disposed

Shailendra Ameen v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2018CRLP/154/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought to quash an FIR regarding offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court held the FIR could not be quashed but restrained the police from arresting the petitioner without cogent evidence, granting a brief notice for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Restraint imposed on Station House Officer not to arrest the petitioner without cogent evidence; notice of at least three days granted for interrogation.

Shailendra Ameen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 154 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shailendra Ameen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is before us to quash the First Information Report dated 17.12.2017 bearing Case Crime No.1376 of 2017 pending investigation at Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar for the offence under Sections 376, 511 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

¶6

While pressing this petition for writ, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that a citation for recovery of Rs.2,49,679/- from husband of the respondent informant Ved prakash was issued by the Tehsildar concerned and the petitioner being an Amin is duty bond to serve the citation and to take further steps in the matter. Just to avoid the recovery of the amount cited above, lodged the First Information Report on 17th December, 2017. As per the learned counsel prior to 17th December, 2017, the petitioner apprehended all the events and therefore made necessary complaint in this regard to the Tehsildar on 29th November, 2017. The Tehsildar after having necessary query submitted a detail report which is available on record as annexure 4.

¶7

We have looked into the First Information Report and the documents annexed with the writ petition. From perusal of the averment contained in the First Information Report, it is apparent that the allegation pertains to commission of an offence cognizable and that certainly demands investigation, and therefore, no interference is warranted by invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

However, looking to the nature of allegations and also surrounding facts, we deem it appropriate to restrain the respondent no.2, Station House Officer, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar not to arrest the petitioner, in the case referred above, without having cogent evidence to establish the charges. The Station House Officer shall also even notice of at least three days to the petitioner, if desires, to call upon the petitioner for interrogation in the matter. The petitioner shall cooperate the investigating agency.

¶9

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶10

Order Date :- 8.1.2018 A.Kr.*

¶11

[Ashok Kumar, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]

Shailendra Ameen v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Ameen v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripa Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Nanku Mallah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar @ Sonu and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Balwant Raj Soni Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sonali Somali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.