Disposed

Baliram @ Baliram Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018CRLP/23752/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash an F.I.R. involving allegations of interference with lawful marriage. However, no arrest of the petitioner was permitted until the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC was submitted or evidence was collected.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; no arrest of petitioner permitted till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC or collection of evidence.

Baliram @ Baliram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23752 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Baliram @ Baliram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F. I. R. dated 22.7.2018 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 103 of 2018, under Sections-363, 368, 506 IPC, police station Rani Ki Sarai, district Azamgarh so far it relates to the petitioner.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that grandson of the petitioner namely Jitendra Yadav has married the daughter of the respondent No.4 and as the respondent No.4 was not happy with the said marriage, present criminal proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner to put pressure, which is bad in law. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the F. I. R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, no credible evidence is forthcoming, even prima facie, indicating that any such incident had taken place, hence the impugned F. I. R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A. G. A. submitted that from the perusal of 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

From the perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima facie cognizable offence is made out hence, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned F. I. R.

¶10

Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F. I. R. is refused. However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and nature of allegations made in the F. I. R., it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 29.8.2018 faraz

Baliram @ Baliram Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram @ Baliram Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Dheerendra Pratap Singh and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kunti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naveen Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anoop Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Purnima Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others