Partly allowed

Roshan Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2018CRLP/4923/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to quash the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence but directed the police not to arrest petitioner Roshan Lal until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while dismissing the prayer regarding co-petitioner Jitendra Pratap Singh.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Station House Officer not to arrest petitioner no.1 (Roshan Lal) till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Petition dismissed against petitioner no.2.

Roshan Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4923 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Roshan Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

This petition for writ is before us with a prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 16.2.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 0174 of 2018 pending investigation at Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad pertaining to the offences under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. read with Sections 7 and 10 of Public Examinations Act, 1988.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case on absolutely concocted facts. No case is made out against the petitioners for the offences referred in the present F.I.R.

¶8

We have looked into the contents of the First Information Report. The averments contained therein disclose commission of offence cognizable and therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to quash the First Information Report.

¶9

However, looking to all the facts of the case and other surrounding circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Station House Officer, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad not to arrest the petitioner no.1 Roshan Lal in the case referred above, till filing of the police report as per provisions of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the Court competent. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating agency during course of investigation. So far as the accused petitioner no.2 Jitendra Pratap Singh is concerned, there is specific allegation against him in the F.I.R. therefore, we do not find any just reason to stay the arrest of petitioner no.2. The writ petition is dismissed against him.

¶10

The writ petition, with the observation above, stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 6.3.2018 S.S.

¶12

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

Roshan Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal 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