Partly allowed

Kamlapat Rai Parshad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018CRLP/33087/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the FIR in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, finding prima facie cognizable offences. However, it granted interim relief prohibiting arrest pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with an interim direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to full cooperation duri

Kamlapat Rai Parshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33087 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamlapat Rai Parshad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha 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 with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered as Case Crime no. 0155 of 2018, under Sections 353, 341, 420, 380 I.P.C. and 3(1)(d) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Baruasagar, district-Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is Parshad and pursuant to a resolution passed, respondent no.4 who is the Executive Officer in Nagarpalika Parishad, Baruasagar, Jhansi, was transferred and after he managed to get the transfer cancelled, thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. was lodged by him against the petitioner containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned F.I.R. does not disclose the ingredients of Section 3(1)(d) of S.C./S.T. Act. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner.

¶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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 :- 19.11.2018 Shalini

Kamlapat Rai Parshad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlapat Rai Parshad 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

Mohd. Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Aadesh Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subhash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Budhasen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anju Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others