Disposed

Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018CRLP/18053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to quash the FIR against the petitioner. Instead, it directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while mandating police investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; police investigation to conclude within three months.

Tej Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18053 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Tej Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 120 of 2018, under Sections- 419, 420 I.P.C. and U/S 6, 7, 10 of U.P. Public Examinations Act, 1998, P.S.Kotwali, District- Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; 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 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, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

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.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.7.2018

¶13

Arun

Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Bahadur Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Hifjur Rehman Urf Guddu

State of U.P. Vs Suresh Yadav and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Sonu Urf Avinash and Anr.

State of U.P. Vs Raju and 3 Others

Julfekar Ali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahamendra @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others