Disposed

Jaideep Kumar Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33562/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. alleging land dispute, the High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed investigation to proceed without arresting the petitioners until the police report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Direction that investigation shall continue but petitioners shall not be arrested until the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Jaideep Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33562 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jaideep Kumar Tiwari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujan Singh 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 AGA 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 6.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0856 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S.- New Agra, District- Agra.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no. 4, Smt. Salesh Chaudhari, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 years, falsely alleging that the possession of the area of the land which was delivered to her pursuant to the sale deed executed by the petitioners in her favour on 17.4.2004 was 205 square yards less than the area agreed to be transferred. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is coming forth 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, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 C. MANI

Jaideep Kumar Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaideep Kumar Tiwari and Another 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