Disposed

Sweta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018CRLP/8856/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the impugned F.I.R. by itself is not liable to be quashed but directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, directing the police to conclude investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction for non-arrest of petitioner until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., and direction to police to conclude investigation within three months.

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8856 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sweta Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Ravi Kant Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,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. 0015/2018 under Section- 306 IPC P.S.- Obra, district- Sonbhadra.

¶7

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; much reliance has been placed upon the order dated 22.2.2018 passed in criminal misc. writ petition no. 4385 of 2018, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record; 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

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.

¶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 and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible within a period of three months from today.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 10.4.2018 SKS

Sweta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Gupta 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

Sunita and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahjad and 03 Others Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Durgawati Shahni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Bilal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahzad @ Guddan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rinku Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.