Disposed

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2019CRLP/11890/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR, the court held that although the FIR could not be quashed during investigation, it was appropriate to direct that no arrest of the petitioner should occur until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Direction given that no arrest of petitioners shall take place until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., during investigation.

Radhey Shyam 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. - 11890 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 05.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2019, under Sections 452, 354-B, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Barla, District Aligarh.

¶7

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the accused entered the house of the informant and outraged the modesty of the informant.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 05.03.2019, through an application dated 20.02.2019, in respect of incident dated 19.02.2019, filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that prior to lodging of the impugned F.I.R., on 12.02.2019, the wife of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Kumkum, had filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against six persons including the informant, Bhagwan Devi, and her husband, Sarman Singh. It has been submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged as counter blast to the application submitted by the wife of the petitioner. A copy of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶9

As correctness of the allegations are not ordinarily to be tested in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the F.I.R. cannot be entertained at this stage when the matter is under investigation.

¶10

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that investigation shall continue and be brought

¶11

to its logical conclusion, but, subject to petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case. Order Date :- 7.5.2019 Vibha Singh

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazmin Bano and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mamta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others