Dismissed

Sunita Devi and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018CRLP/8826/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous writ petition sought to quash an F. I. R. alleging domestic violence and harassment. The High Court declined to quash the F. I. R. but granted relief preventing arrest until the submission of the police report while mandating cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted a direction not to be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with the investigation.

Sunita Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8826 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunita Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vageesh Pandey,Randhir Jain Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard 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. 127 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners, who are the Nanad, Nandoi and Jeth, with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); much reliance has been placed upon paragraph no. 6 to 8 of the writ petition; 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 impugned F. I. R.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case 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 co-operate with the investigation.

¶11

Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Kuldeep

Sunita Devi and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 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

Arvind Rai Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Ashish Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Kumar and 06 Others Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Mohd. Ajmal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Raj Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others