Disposed

Haneef and 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2018CRLP/3417/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR was disposed of by granting a specific direction restraining the arrest of the petitioners pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while mandating their cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Haneef and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3417 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Haneef And 10 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 19.12.2017 registered as case crime no. 1048 of 2017 under sections 498-A, 316, 328, 376-D, 354, 395, 457, 323, 504, 294 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Sardhana, District Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier an F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of respondent no. 3 against petitioner no. 1 and another person which was challenged by them before this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 25573 of 2017 in which interim protection was given by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017 copy of which has been annexed at page-37 of the present petition. Thereafter, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no. 3 against petitioner no. 1 and his other family members levelling false and frivolous allegations, hence the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶9

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but they shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶10

With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 13.2.2018 Shiraz

Haneef and 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef and 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sanfeeta and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Netrapal Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Malti Devi and Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Anwar @ Anwarul HUDA and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Hari Singh Vs C.B.I, a.C.B., Ghaziabad