Disposed

Radhey Shyam Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2018CRLP/6294/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application to quash the FIR but granted an interim direction protecting the petitioner from arrest until the police submits its investigation report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions that petitioner shall not be arrested; police to complete investigation and submit report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. within three months.

Radhey Shyam Dubey Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6294 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Imran Ullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Akhilesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

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. 97 of 2006, under Section 12/13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and section 218, 419, 420, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has very fairly informed the Court that two of the co-caused, namely, Satish Kumar Sharma and Vinay Kumar Goel @ V. K. Goel had filed writ petitions before this Court and both the writ petitions have been dismissed by other benches of this Court vide orders dated 20.9.2017 and 28.7.2017, copy of which are annexed with the writ petition. Much reliance has been placed on the orders annexed on page 63 onwards to the writ petition. Further contention is that as far as co-accused Vinay Kumar Goel @ V. K. Goel is concerned, he had filed an SLP before the Apex Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 8528 of 2017 in which the Apex Court has granted relief. The said order is being quoted herein below:-

¶8

"As prayed, learned counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶9

List thereafter.

¶10

In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the averments as made in paragraph no. 10 onwards of the writ petition. It is further submitted that the FIR itself is of the year 2006 (11.8.2006) and the sanction order is dated 4.7.2017, however, till date the investigation has not been completed and the same is pending. It has also been mentioned the writ petition that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement.

¶12

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.

¶13

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the

¶14

impugned F. I. R.

¶15

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the interim order granted by the Apex Court and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible. It is further directed that the investigating agency may now complete the investigation and submit a report as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.3.2018 shiv

Radhey Shyam Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam Dubey 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

In the Matter of Goods of Late Rai Bharat Kumar Vs

Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs Om Prakash and Another

Radhika Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gautam Rojgar Sewak@Gautam Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sajid Islam Khan Deceased and Others Vs Khalil Islam Khan and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ashutosh Pandey Alias Neeraj Pandey and Another