Partly allowed

Vaibhav @ Shivendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018CRLP/37011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging false charges with intent to harass. Court refused to quash the FIR but directed restraint on arrest pending police report, conditional on petitioner's cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused. Order for non-arrest directed pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

Vaibhav @ Shivendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37011 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vaibhav @ Shivendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 21.12.2017 registered as Case Crime No.964 of 2017, under Sections 328,379 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Banda.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing him. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶10

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 18.12.2018 M. Tariq

Vaibhav @ Shivendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav @ Shivendra Pratap Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushila Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Anuj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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