Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018CRLP/9218/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected the petition to quash an FIR involving matrimonial dispute and sexual offence allegations, but directed non-arrest of the petitioner during investigation until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of direction for arrest directed; petitioner must cooperate with investigation pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Raman Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9218 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Raman Kumar Nim Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naresh Kumar Singh 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. 0756 of 2017, under Sections-420, 498A, 376, 511, 377, 506, 494, 323, 504,316 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Medical College, district Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.4; the 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; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; 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 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.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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