Partly allowed

Rahul Verma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court exercised discretion under Article 226 to quash an FIR with conditions. Investigation proceeds without arrest for co-petitioners pending police report, while the petition by the husband is dismissed with a directive for expedited bail hearing.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue without arrest of petitioners 2-5 until police report; writ petition by petitioner 1 (husband) dismissed but bail application to be heard expeditiously.

Rahul Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33531 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Verma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Tiwari 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 issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 4.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 934 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 376, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Delhi Gate, District- Aligarh.

¶7

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 the allegation regarding commission of offence u/s 376 IPC has been made against the brother-in-law (devar) of respondent no.3. He further submitted that the respondent no.3 has not specified as to which brother-in-law has committed rape upon her. He lastly submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and the impugned F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, 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 allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R., we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶10

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of this writ petition with the following conditions:-

¶11

1. The investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner nos.2 to5 shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.

¶12

2. Qua petitioner no.1, Rahul Verma (Husband), this writ petition stands dismissed. However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case he appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 Shalini

Rahul Verma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Verma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Bahadur Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

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

Babu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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