Disposed

Anjana @ Anjali and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018CRLP/9423/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declined to quash an FIR but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while mandating cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; directed to co-operate with investigation.

Anjana @ Anjali and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9423 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Anjana @ Anjali And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Indrakesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Ojha

¶4

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

¶5

Exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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. 0097 of 2018, under Section- 363, 366 IPC P.S.- Khajani, district- Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is victim and petitioner no. 2 is the accused; both of them have filed joint affidavit; as per the Aadhar card age of the girl is 01.01.1998; both have solemnized marriage and live happily as husband and wife; marriage certificate of the petitioners is annexed at page 35 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 petitioners 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.

¶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 Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P. passed in criminal appeal no. 1142/2013 decided on 2.8.2013 , Lata Singh vs State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011(6) SCC 396 (2014) and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India passed in writ petition (civil) no. 231 of 2010, 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 :- 13.4.2018 Ujjawal

Anjana @ Anjali and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana @ Anjali and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

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

Karishma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Imran Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Updesh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.