Dismissed

Geeta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018CRLP/34779/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The quashing of an FIR under Section 366 IPC was dismissed. However, the court granted relief preventing coercive action against the petitioner until the submission of a charge sheet, conditioned upon the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to petitione

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34779 of 2018 Petitioner :- Geeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶3

Heard Sri C.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for State.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR dated 28.10.2018 respect of Case Crime No.784 of 2018 under Section 366 of IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is a married lady having 3 children. The prosecutrix was known to the petitioner and she used to visit her house. It appears that the prosecutrix was having affairs with the brother of the petitioner who has been made co-accused. They both are major. However, the petitioner is not aware about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix and her brother, but the police is unnecessarily harassing her by making false allegations. It has been argued that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under Section 366 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner because the basic ingredients of the said section are completely missing

¶6

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition.

¶7

Be that as it may, keeping in mind the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, we are not inclined to quash the first information report. The petition in that respect is dismissed.

¶8

However, in the larger interest, we finally dispose of this petition with a direction that the State authorities would not take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C before the court concerned.

¶9

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioner cooperates in the investigation.

¶10

The petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.12.2018//Shahid

Geeta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dela Singh Vs State

Bhaddi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rambresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Afzal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rizwana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others