Disposed

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

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2018CRLP/16340/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the impugned F.I.R. under IPC and S.C./S.T. Act, holding that a prima-facie cognizable offence was made out. However, the court directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the police file their report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned F.I.R. refused quashing; petitioners directed not to be arrested until police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Sunil and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16340 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 30.3.2018, registered as Case Crime No.400 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 354, 354ka, 354kha, 392, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Sardhana, District Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He next submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged as a counterblast to the F.I.R. lodged by the mother of the petitioners u/s 452, 376 IPC and 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, against the son of respondent no.3. He further submitted that 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 petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima-facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no scope of interfering in the F.I.R, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶10

However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is directed that till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 21.6.2018 Shalini

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil and Another 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

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.

Sonam (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others