Partly allowed

Sugriv Ram Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019CRLP/10091/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR under Section 138 CrPC and Section 313, 376, 323 and 506 IPC. However, it directed non-arrest for four petitioners pending police report and ordered three others to surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report was not quashed. Non-arrest directed for four petitioners till submission of police report. Three other petitioners directed to surrender within 30 days.

Sugriv Ram Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10091 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sugriv Ram Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA for the respondents-State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 3.4.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 68 of 2019, under Sections 313, 376, 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pipari, district Sonebhadra.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first information report lodged by the respondent no. 3 with absolutely false and vague allegations that she was ravished by Manoj Kumar Yadav son of petitioner no. 1 Sugriv Ram Yadav and petitioners who are the family members had extended threat to her life. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire prosecution story is the outcome of personal grudge of the respondent no. 3. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation made against the petitioners rather it reflects the manoeuvring on the part of the respondent no. 3. Therefore, the first information report so lodged by the respondent no. 3 is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioners. The innocence of the petitioners cannot be adjudged at this stage.

¶9

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the

¶10

petitioners therefore, we do not find any cogent or convincing reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioner nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, namely, Sangeeta, Rani, Anjali and Kajal shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that the petitioner nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

However, so far as the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3, namely, Sugriv Ram Yadav, Lallu Yadav @ Pramod Yadav and Dileep Yadav are concerned, they are directed to surrender and appear before the court below within 30 days from today and in case they apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 Shahnawaz

Sugriv Ram Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugriv Ram Yadav and 6 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaggilal @ Jagdish and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhbiri and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Laxman Singh @ Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others