Dismissed

Neelam Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR in a criminal case involving offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471, finding prima facie cognizable offences out. However, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; direction given not to arrest petitioner pending police report submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Neelam Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37252 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Neelam Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshit Pathak,Anurag Pathak 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 10.2.2018 registered as Case Crime No.311 of 2018, under Sections 406,420,467,468,471 IPC, P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad.

¶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

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

¶11

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 M. Tariq

Neelam Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Upadhyay 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

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

Safayddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others