Disposed

Anil Kumar Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the FIR as cognizable offences were prima facie made out. However, a direction was issued that the petitioners shall not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, conditioned on their cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for quashing of FIR refused. Direction issued that petitioners shall not be arrested till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, subject to cooperation with investigati

Anil Kumar Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37263 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghubir Singh 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 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 28.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No.964 of 2018, under Sections 420,120-B IPC and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Taj Ganj, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 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 M. Tariq

Anil Kumar Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Upadhyay and Another 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