Partly allowed

Atish Singh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2018CRLP/5615/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition for quashing the FIR against Petitioner 1. However, granting a direction that Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 shall not be arrested until the police report is filed. They must cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Atish Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5615 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Atish Singh And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kavindra Singh,Rajat Agarwal,Rajeev Upadhyay

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajat Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned A.G.A. for the State and Rajeev Upadhyay learned counsel for respondent no.4.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0003 of 2018 u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 427, 376 IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Mahila Thana Civil Lines District Allahabad.

¶8

Perusal of record shows that this matter was referred to mediation centre, however the report of mediation centre shows that the money which was required to be deposited has not been deposited. Therefore, the Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; 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 petitioner(s) in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶11

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶12

Looking to the contentions as made in the FIR and looking to the contention as has been made at Bar, no case for grant of any indulgence in favour of petitioner no.1 is made out. Thus, the writ petition inasmuch as it pertains to petitioner no.1 stands dismissed and no relief is being granted to him.

¶13

However, as far as petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 are concerned, they are motherin-law, father-in-law and maternal father-in-law and following order is

¶14

being passed:-

¶15

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27.7.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶17

This order has been passed with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.4.2018 SP

Atish Singh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atish Singh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

Karishma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Imran Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Updesh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Km. Nagma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Smt. Basanti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Usaman @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others