Partly allowed

Manju Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2018CRLP/4033/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition, the High Court declined to quash the FIR due to serious allegations. However, it directed the SHO not to arrest the petitioners until the police submits the report under Section 173(2) CrPC and mandated their cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; direction given not to arrest petitioners till police report under Section 173(2) CrPC is submitted.

Manju Srivastava and Another Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4033 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Manju Srivastava And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Govt. Of U.P Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Upon oral request learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in cause title of the main petition as well as in stay application as District Allahabad in place of District Deoria, which has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner before Court.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the Staterespondents.

¶7

This petition for writ is before us to have a direction to quash the FIR dated 7.2.2018 bearing Case Crime No.0029 of 2018, pending investigation at Police Station Shivkuti, District Allahabad for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC.

¶8

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

¶9

We have looked into the FIR that is challenged in this petition for writ. A bare perusal of the contents of the FIR discloses the commission of serious offences which are cognizable. Looking to definite accusation we are at all not inclined to interfere with the same while invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

However, looking to the merits of the case and the surrounding circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Station House Officer, respondent no.3 not to arrest the petitioners Smt. Manju Srivastava and Shyam Behari Srivastava in relation to FIR, referred to above, till submission of the police report under the provisions of Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners shall cooperate the investigating agency during the course of investigation.

¶11

Petition stands disposed of as above.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.2.2018 pk

¶13

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

Manju Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P Lucknow and 3 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

Pawan Sarswat and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sukhdeo Singh Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sandeep Mishra @ Satya Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Priyanka Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brijraj @ Dhedhai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others