Disposed

Rinku Verma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27314/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an F.I.R. alleging rape and affray on grounds of false allegations and malice. The court refused quash but directed non-arrest under Section 157 Cr.P.C. pending collection of credible evidence by the IO.

What did the court decide?

Refusal of quashing; direction not to arrest petitioners until credible evidence is collected by the IO.

Rinku Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27314 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rinku Verma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 22.02.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 149 of 2018, under Sections 147, 452, 376, 511, 506, 427, 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Etmadaula, District- Agra.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 3, Smt. Khusboo Verma who is the real aunt of petitioner no. 1, Rinku Verma containing absolutely false and concocted allegations regarding commission of offences by the petitioners under Sections 147, 452, 376, 511, 506, 427, 504 I.P.C. as a counterblast to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner no. 2, Smt. Shakti Verma, wife of petitioner no. 1 against the husband of the respondent no. 3 and uncle of the petitioner no. 1. He next submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

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. There is no ground for interference with the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶9

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P.; 1994 Cr.L.J 1981, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the abovementioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

¶10

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.10.2018 KS

Rinku Verma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Verma and 4 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Priya and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Musheer @ Musheer Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others