Partly allowed

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/36333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The two-judge bench refused to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, finding prima facie offences established. However, it directed the petitioners not to be arrested until the police report is filed, subject to adhering to investigation processes.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused; petitioners not to be arrested till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with investigation.

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 36333 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Shukla,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 31.10.2018 in Case Crime No.526 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 Smt. Meena containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶9

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 RCT/-

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Safayddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd Gufran and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others