Disposed

Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2018CRLP/28160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to quash the FIR under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 IPC. However, directing that investigation continue, it clarified that petitioners shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Direction to allow investigation but stay arrest of petitioners until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 28160 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Pandey,Pragya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in the Court today is kept on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 05.06.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 470 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Soraon, DistrictAllahabad.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case is predominantly of civil character and 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.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶10

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R., we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.10.2018 KS

Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambrish Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shakeel Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saabiya Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashif and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others