Dismissed

Smt. Sushila and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019CRLP/11534/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash an FIR under various IPC sections registered against the petitioners, holding non-compoundable offences demanded investigation. The court declined the interim stay on arrest and directed the petitioners to file for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The main prayer to quash the FIR was dismissed, and the prayer for interim stay on arrest was rejected.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11534 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sushila And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hemendra Kumar,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J. K. Shishodia, learned counsel for the private respondent, Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 03.02.2019 registered as case crime no. 0014 of 2019, under sections 498-A, 323, 406, 354, 494, 377 I.P.C., police station Mahila Thana, District Agra.

¶7

On going through the FIR, we are satisfied that no case is made out to quash the same. The contents of the report discloses commission of non-compoundable offence that demands investigation. It would be also be appropriate to state that prima facie we are also not satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice to quash the FIR and further that the investigation required to be made shall be abuse of the process.

¶8

In light of whatever stated above, we are not inclined to quash the FIR.

¶9

The petitioner/s has also prayed for an interim order to stay the arrest during the course of investigation relating to the FIR that is sought to be quashed in this petition for writ. In our opinion, when we are not inclined to grant the main relief sought by the petitioner/s, it would not be appropriate to grant the ancillary relief. Beside that the petitioner/s is/are having an efficacious remedy by way of filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) to have anticipatory bail apprehending arrest.

¶10

The petitioner/s may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 02.05.2019 staying arrest of the petitioner/s, the same shall remain continue till 31.07.2019, provided the petitioner/s move an application before the Court competent as per provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) on or

¶11

before 30.07.2019.

¶12

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Anand

Smt. Sushila and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila 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

Mashrun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Neeraj Kaushik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Deepak Kuamr Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Shamsher Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asif and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others