Allowed

Devendra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018CRLP/6/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6 of 2018, the High Court quashed the impugned order directing the arrest of petitioners. Observing that the kidnapped girl voluntarily left her house and entered wedlock with petitioner no. 1, the Court directed the respondents not to arrest the petitioners until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Directed not to arrest petitioners in relation to the FIR till filing of the police report; petitioner to cooperate with investigation.

Devendra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Devendra And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the Staterespondents.

¶6

This petition for writ is before us to get the FIR dated 18.7.2017 bearing Case Crime No.278 of 2017, pending investigation at Police Station Belipart, District Gorakhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 323, 504, 506 IPC quashed.

¶7

It is brought to our notice that earlier too petitioners preferred a petition for writ bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13761 of 2016, Devendra and two others vs. State of U.P. and two others, wherein a direction was given not to arrest the petitioners and further to record the statements of the kidnapped girl as per the provisions of Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned.

¶8

The statement of the kidnapped girl as per Section 164 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded, a copy whereof is available on record, as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. From perusal of the statement it appears that the girl left her house at her own and entered into a wedlock with the petitioner no.1, Devendra as per her will and wishes.

¶9

In view of above, we do not find any reason that may be necessitating the arrest of the petitioner in the case in question. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in relation to the FIR dated 18.7.2017 bearing Case Crime No.278 of 2017, pending investigation at Police Station Belipart, District Gorakhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 323, 504, 506 IPC till filing of the police report as per provisions of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall cooperate the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation.

¶10

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 pk

¶11

(Ashok Kumar.J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Devendra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra and 5 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mohd. Hasan Rizvi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jamuna and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Shiyam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others