Dismissed

Vikrant Sharma v. State of U.P. and 04 others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2018CRLP/5360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A and 506 IPC against the petitioner. Relying on precedents, the court held that since a cognizable offence was prima facie made out, there was no ground for quashing the FIR or staying arrest.

What did the court decide?

No ground found for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

Vikrant Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 04 others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5360 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vikrant Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.9.2017 registered as Case Crime No.393 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P., Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is husband of respondent no.5 as the marriage between them was solemnized in the year 2015 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner has earlier filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is still pending and when respondent no.5 has came to know about filing of the said application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage, she filed the present FIR against the petitioner. He further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.

¶5

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.

¶6

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶7

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶8

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

¶9

Order Date :- 5.3.2018/NS

Vikrant Sharma v. State of U.P. and 04 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Sharma v. State of U.P. and 04 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kajal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Smt. Komal @ Priya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Sharfudeen and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others