Partly allowed

Ratnesh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging extortion and sexual offenses under IPC Sections 498A, 376, 377. It directed investigation continuation without arrest of four petitioners until the police report, but dismissed the writ for the remaining three petitioners while directing expeditious bail hearings.

What did the court decide?

Investigation directed without arrest of petitioner Nos. 4–7 till police report; bail petitions for petitioner Nos. 1–3 to be heard expeditiously.

Ratnesh and 6 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. - 33550 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ratnesh And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Misra 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 18.7.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 596 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 376, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.Nauchandi, District- Meerut.

¶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 u/s 377 IPC has been made only against petitioner no.1-husband and the allegation u/s 376 IPC has been made only against petitioner nos.2 and 3. It is 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.4 to 7 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 nos.1, 2 and 3, 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 they appear 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

Ratnesh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnesh and 6 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

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