Remanded

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2019CRLP/12586/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged quashing of FIR alleging rape. Court noted FIR need not show all facts but accepted relationship duration and lack of force accused allegations. Investigation ordered to continue with petitioner non-arrestable post-registration.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; petitioner not to be arrested till police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to cooperation.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12586 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Araf Khan,Lihazur Rahman Khan 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 no. 1 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 25.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1001 of 2018, under Sections 376 I.P.C., Police Station Noida Sector-39, District Gautambudh Nagar.

¶7

The impugned F.I.R. alleges that the accused Manish (the petitioner), had established physical relationship with the informant under promise of marriage and he utilized educational certificate, Adhar Card, Pan Card and other identity documents of the informant to finance an I-10 Grand vehicle and had been blackmailing the informant.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in so far as I-10 Grand vehicle is concerned it is registered in the name of the petitioner with registration no. DL-8CAV2987and the vehicle has been financed by ICICI Bank and it has not been financed in the name of the informant. It has also been submitted that from the allegations it appears that both parties had been in a relationship for a long period of time and it has not been specifically disclosed as to when any promise of marriage was extended.

¶9

Be that as it may, it is well settled that the F.I.R. need not be an encyclopedia of all facts and allegations and, therefore, the necessary facts may be disclosed by the informant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also well settled that correctness of the allegations are not ordinarily to be tested in the writ jurisdiction, therefore the prayer of the petitioner to quash the F.I.R. cannot be accepted.

¶10

However considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also that the relationship was for a considerable length of time and there is no specific allegation that force has been used upon the victim, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that investigation shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion, but, subject to petitioner's co-operation in the investigation, the petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case.

¶11

Order Date :- 14.5.2019

¶12

Vibha Singh

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ashutosh Kumar @ Veeru and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surya Bali Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Chandra Pal @ Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Navin Kumar @ Navin and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Samir @ Amir Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Radhey Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others