Disposed

Hariom Gupta and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2018CRLP/23967/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging sexual offence under IPC 354-B and allied sections, claiming false implication. The Court refused quashing but directed no arrest pending police report submission or credible evidence collection under CrPC 173(2).

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.

Hariom Gupta and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23967 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Hariom Gupta And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Chandra Naik 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 petitioners with prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 16.7.2018 lodged in Case Crime No.352 of 2018, under Sections 354-B, 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C., Police Station Bakhira, DistrictSant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

It is contended that respondent no.3 has already lodged a First Information Report on 23.3.2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & D.P. Act, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8956 of 2018 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.4.2018, petitioner has granted till submission of police report. It is further contended that petitioner and his family members have falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 30.8.2018

¶14

Junaid

Hariom Gupta and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom Gupta and 6 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baliram @ Baliram Yadav 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

Sanjay Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kusmawati and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balbir Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others