Partly allowed

Suresh Chandra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33541/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as a prima facie cognizable offence was made out. However, petitioners were granted immunity from arrest until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash of FIR refused; petitioners granted immunity from arrest till submission of police report under Sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Suresh Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33541 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil 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.497 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kishni, district-Mainpuri.

¶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. He further submitted that it is alleged in the F. I. R. that the petitioners had forged a will of uncle of respondent no.4 in favour of petitioner no.2- Smt. Munni Devi. The issue regarding validity and authenticity of the will is engaging the attention of the civil court and the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.4 with the intention of putting pressure upon the petitioners. He next 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 :- 22.11.2018 Shalini

Suresh Chandra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra 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

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