Partly allowed

Saweez and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019CRLP/10358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that petitioners shall not be arrested pending the submission of the investigation report under Section 173(2) CrPC, conditional upon their cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; direction for non-arrest of petitioners pending investigation report under Section 173(2) CrPC if they cooperate.

Saweez and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10358 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Saweez And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Shahnawaz Sha h, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 03.04.2019 , registered as Case Crime No. 258 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sardhana, District-Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 Syambole containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submitted that 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 the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

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

¶10

not find any cogent 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 petitioners 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 they shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 Rahul.

Saweez and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saweez and 2 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

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nirmala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othrs

Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Deepak Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others