Dismissed

Kiran Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27336/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging involvement in kidnapping. The court refused to quash the FIR as prima facie offences were made out. However, the court directed that petitioners shall not be arrested until credible evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer, relying on Section 157 Cr.P.C. and Joginder Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused. Direction issued that petitioners shall not be arrested until credible evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer.

Kiran Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27336 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kiran Devi And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar 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 10.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 62 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S.- Dokati, District- Ballia.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 alleging therein that her minor daughter, Anamika alias Manisha has been kidnapped by Niranjan Singh, who is son of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, brother of petitioner nos. 3 and 5 and brother-in-law of petitioner no. 4. He next submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, apart from bald allegations that they had abetted Niranjan Singh in the kidnapping of minor daughter of respondent no. 3, no credible evidence is coming forth even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the aforesaid crime and hence, the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and product of lies, 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

Kiran Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Devi 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