Disposed

Shaukat Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018CRLP/9210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging an FIR under Sections 366, 376 IPC by refusing to quash it but directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted while requiring cooperation in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to not be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; police directed to conclude investigation early; petitioner to cooperate.

Shaukat Ali 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. - 9210 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shaukat Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Prasad Mahant 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. 2937 of 2017, under Sections366,376,323, 506,120B IPC, P.S.Kotwali, district Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, however, the main allegation is against coaccused Saddam as per statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim and petitioner has no concern with the same; 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 , we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner 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 :- 12.4.2018

¶13

T.S.

Shaukat Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukat Ali 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

Satya Pal @ Satya Dev 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

Rajan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Raman Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others