Disposed

Satya Pal @ Satya Dev v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2018CRLP/9054/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 51 declined to quash an FIR under Section 498A IPC filed in a domestic dispute. Instead, it directed that the petitioner not be arrested pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Satya Pal @ Satya Dev Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9054 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Satya Pal @ Satya Dev Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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.206 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is matrimonial dispute and marriage of Smt. Mamta (since deceased) has been solemnized with Vikas son of Jagdish 11 years back in which petitioner acted as a mediator for fixing the marriage and he had no other role to play; present FIR has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; 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 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 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 petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 11.4.2018

¶13

T.S.

Satya Pal @ Satya Dev v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Pal @ Satya Dev 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jameel Ahmad and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mulayam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukhdeep Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar and 04 Others Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Basantlal Chaurasiya @ Lallu and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others