Partly allowed

Nishant Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018CRLP/32204/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the F.I.R. lodged as a counter-blast against the petitioner. The court ordered that investigation proceed without arresting the petitioner until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided he cooperates fully. The petition was finally disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Stipulated that the petitioner shall not be arrested during the investigation phase until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, provided he extends full cooperation.

Nishant Srivastava 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. - 32204 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Nishant Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary,Swarn Lata Suman Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,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 petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 12.10.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 1113 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner as a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by him against the respondent no. 4 which was registered as Case Crime No. 1077 of 2018, under Sections 504, 323, 392, 427, 506 I.P.C. Moreover apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no credible evidence whatsoever is coming forth even prima facie indicating at the petitioners complicity in the commission of the alleged crime and for the aforesaid reason 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. 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 F.I.R., 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 :- 12.11.2018 SA

Nishant Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Srivastava 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

Balram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Kapoor Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mayank Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Santosh Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others