Partly allowed

Guddi Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018CRLP/32811/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging cheating and forgery in a civil dispute dispute involving sale deed.Court refused to quash but granted stay on arrest pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..

What did the court decide?

Do not arrest petitioners till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., condition upon full cooperation during investigation.

Guddi Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 32811 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Guddi Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pal Singh,Harish Chandra Singh 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. 369 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, districtKushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.4 about 19 days before filing a suit for cancellation of sale deed which is the subject matter in the impugned F.I.R. Moreover, the dispute between the parties is essentially 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 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 16.11.2018 Shalini

Guddi Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddi Devi and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Kavita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Viresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kushmakar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others