Partly allowed

Om Prakash Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2018CRLP/28211/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28211 of 2018 declined to quash an FIR for abduction. While no arrest charge existed against the petitioner, investigation was directed to proceed without arrest until the police report was submitted.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; investigation directed to proceed without petitioner's arrest until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Om Prakash Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 28211 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Kashyap Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Muktesh Kumar Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.07.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 178 of 2018, under Section 366 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Khwaza, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of kidnapping has been made in the impugned F.I.R. which has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 against co-accused, Ashish Kashyap, nephew of the petitioner. As regards the petitioner, no allegation of kidnapping has been made against him. Moreover apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is coming forth even prima facie indicating at the petitioner's complicity in the commission of the alleged crime and for the aforesaid reason the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegation made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 30.10.2018 SA

Om Prakash Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Kashyap 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

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

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

Pramod Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hemant Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Amresh Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others