Disposed

Sankata Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. through Homr Secretary and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2018CRLP/4210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash an FIR alleging cognizable offences arising from a disputed property matter. The Court refused to quash the FIR as prima facie offences were made out but directed no arrest until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., requiring petitioner cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Quash prayer refused; no arrest directed till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Sankata Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4210 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sankata Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Homr Secretary And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pandey,Rajdev Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2017 registered as case crime no. 0649 of 2017 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 504 & 506 IPC Police Station George Town District Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was some property dispute between the petitioners and respondent no. 4 on account of which an F.I.R. has been lodged by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.4 and others in for an offence under Sections 406, 506, 342, 462, 392 I.P.C. Police Station George Town District Allahabad on 23.12.2017. Though the impugned F.I.R. dated 21.12.2017 has been lodged by the respondent No.4 against the petitioners as present point of time it is only for the harassment and malafide intention. He submits that the dispute between the parties, if any, is purely civil in nature, hence the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

From the perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that prima facie cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶10

However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but he shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶11

With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Pr/-

Sankata Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. through Homr Secretary and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankata Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. through Homr Secretary and 3 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

Qadeer Vs State of U.P. AND5 Others

Riyaj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Gaurav Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gendia Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Gagan Gupta and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Helal Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others