Disposed

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019CRLP/10889/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court refused to quash the FIR despite allegations of false implications but directed that the petitioner would not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall not be arrested in the said case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10889 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaiya Lal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,U.C. Chaturvedi

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel Shri U.C. Chaturvedi appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 5.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No.484 of 2018, under Sections 420,467,468,471 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing him. 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 petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent

¶9

no.4 and the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do 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 petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner 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 he shall cooperate 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 :- 25.4.2019 M. Tariq

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 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

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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rashmi Behl Vs Union of India and 2 Others