Partly allowed

Jaiveer and 3 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary of Homes U.P Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2018CRLP/3554/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging an FIR under IPC Sections 324, 323, 504, 506. Court refused to quash FIR finding alleged offence cognizable. Stay of arrest granted for three petitioners but dismissed for one who requires investigation participation.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; stay of arrest granted for petitioners 2, 3, 4; request to cooperate in investigation.

Jaiveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3554 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jaiveer And 3 Others

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Of Homes U.P Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar,Indra Bhan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the respondents-State and perused the record.

¶7

This petition for writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 15.01.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 29 of 2018 pending investigation at Police Station - Bahjoi, District - Bhim Nagar pertaining to offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no case is made out against the petitioners for the offences referred in the first information report.

¶9

Having considered the facts stated in the first information report, we do not find any just reason to quash the first information report as that discloses commission of an offence cognizable.

¶10

So far as the stay of the arrest of the petitioner no. 1- Jaiveer is concerned, we would like to state that definite allegations are made against him. In view of it petitioner no. 1 is certainly required for investigation in the matter. Writ petition on his behalf is dismissed in entirety.

¶11

However, looking to the nature of the case and other surrounding circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 2- Station House Officer not to arrest the petitioners- Rajesh, Happu, Vinesh in relation to first information report referred to above till submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

Petition to the extent of petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 stands disposed of as above.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.2.2018

¶14

Rameez

¶15

(Ashok Kumar,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Jaiveer and 3 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary of Homes U.P Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiveer and 3 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary of Homes U.P Lucknow 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

Ashok Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagwan Devi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mohd. Nahid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 10 Ors.

Triyugi Narain Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kuamr Awasthi and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.