Partly allowed

Jai Dayal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2019CRLP/13176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR where the petitioner was incorrectly named, the court refused to quash the report due to cogent allegations of cognizable offences. However, it allowed the investigation to continue and stayed the petitioner's arrest until the police report is submitted, pending his cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash FIR refused; investigation to continue; petitioner not to be arrested till submission of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

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

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13176 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jai Dayal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Vishvakarma,Varun Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.

¶5

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 04.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0007 of 2019, at P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras, under Sections 354-B, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C., later, Section 376 I.P.C. has also been added.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is not named in the first information report, which has been lodged against Kanhaiya and one unknown person, and that there are no allegations of sexual assault against the petitioner.

¶7

The learned A.G.A. has produced copy of CD extract to disclose that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. allegation of extension of threat by the petitioner is there.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated because his brotherin-law is the main accused.

¶9

Be that as it may, as the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences, neither the first information report nor the consequential investigation can be quashed and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶10

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also that the petitioner is not named in the first information report and, subsequently, he has been implicated by alleging that he extended threat, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, he shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶11

Order Date :- 27.5.2019/Md Faisal

Jai Dayal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Dayal 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

Smt. Meena Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Virendra Nishad @ Virendra Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Ramchandra Chaurasia and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajaram Shah and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Menaz Ahamad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others