The High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed that petitioners not be arrested until credible evidence is collected by the investigating officer, citing Section 157 Cr.P.C. and Joginder Kumar.
FIR rejected; no arrest until credible evidence collection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33344 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Rathor,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 5.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No.137 of 2018, under Sections 307, 379, 411, 279, 431, 432, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and Section 3/5 Public Property Damages Act, P.S.- Mahobkanth, District- Mahoba.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. It is further submitted that no one has received any injury in the alleged incident and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P.; 1994 Cr.L.J 1981, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the abovementioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 20.11.2018 Shalini
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed prima facie given the prima facie case?
Whether the petitioners should be arrested pending investigation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P.Referred¶9
Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P.; 1994 Cr.L.J 1981
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kumar
Ram Kumar
State Of U.P.
Unknown
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
