Disposed

Smt. Suraj Mukhi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2018CRLP/32490/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash an FIR alleging false, civil-dispute-based allegations. The bench found prima facie cognizable offences but directed no arrest until the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC is submitted, subject to cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Smt. Suraj Mukhi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 32490 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Suraj Mukhi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,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 a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered as Case Crime no. 585 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kayamaganj, DistrictFarrukhabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is one of civil nature. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima-facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no scope of interfering in the F.I.R, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶10

However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is directed that till

¶11

the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 14.11.2018 Abhishek

Smt. Suraj Mukhi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suraj Mukhi and 2 Others 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

Dansih (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Subash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nand Lal and 4 OTHERS20 Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sobaran and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others