Disposed

Archana and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019CRLP/10677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging a knife attack during a drain dispute. The court held factual disputes could not dictate dismissal at this stage but directed police to continue investigation without arresting petitioners until the police report's submission.

What did the court decide?

Investigation shall continue; petitioners shall not be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..

Archana and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10677 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Archana And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hari Nand Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and 2; Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed for quashing the first information report dated 2.4.2019 registered as case crime no. 130 of 2019 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 307, 294, 354 (Ka), 324 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Manda, District- Prayagraj.

¶7

The allegation in the first information report is that the accused persons, seven in number, with whom the informant and his family had a dispute relating to a drain, came armed with lathi, danda and knife and attacked the son of the informant. It is alleged that when the informant intervened, accused Ajai (non petitioner) attacked the informant with knife thereby causing injury. It has been stated that police was informed by dialling 100, upon which the police arrived and arrested Ajai.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners have been falsely implicated and their case is distinguishable from that of Ajai. It has been submitted that if the police had arrived and had arrested Ajai had there been any involvement of petitioners, the petitioners also would have been arrested. It has been submitted that on account of drain dispute the petitioners have been falsely implicated along with Ajai.

¶9

Be that as it may, all these aspects are factual in nature and they cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the first information report, as correctness of the allegation made would have to be tested on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation.

¶10

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also that a solitary injury was caused and the role of causing injury has specifically been attributed to Ajay, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to petitioners' cooperation in the investigation, they shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..

¶11

Order Date :- 23.4.2019

¶12

A. Pt. Singh

Archana and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana and 5 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

Praveen Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramveer and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshul Babra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shanu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Idrees and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Chandar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others