Disposed

Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018CRLP/20298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to quash the FIR as a cognizable offence was made out. However, the court directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police submit their report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

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

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20298 of 2018 Petitioner :- Charan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maithali Sharan Pipersenia,Devendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Swatantra Kumar

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

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. 0897 of 2018 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC PS Kotwali Nagar District Etah.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; reliance has been placed on the averments made in para 28 to 30 of the writ petition; 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(s) 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 SP

Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Pradeep Nishad

State of U.P. Vs Shakir Alias Shakeel and 2 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Ji @ Avneesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Navraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others