Disposed

Mangal Babu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2019CRLP/13381/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a criminal writ petition to quash FIR alleging lack of force in rape/sexual offence charges and family implicate motive. Court rejected quash plea but directed suspension of arrests pending police report if investigation cooperation is provided.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; petitioners not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided they co-operate.

Mangal Babu and 4 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13381 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mangal Babu And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. dated 3.5.2019 registered as case crime No. 146 of 2019 under Section 376, 377, 323, 506, 314 I.P.C., Police Station- Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the allegations made in the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence but from the allegations itself it appears that the relationship spanned over a period of two years. It has been submitted that there is nothing to indicate that any force has been used upon the victim and the allegation that victim's video clip was taken and under threat of making it viral, she was extorted and subjugated is not substantiated.

¶7

It has also been alleged that the purpose of the first information report is to implicate the entire family members of Mangal Babu (petitioner no. 1) and pressurise them. It has been contended that in fact the victim has been married to the petitioner no. 1 and she had deliberately hidden her marriage for the purpose of extorting money from the petitioner.

¶8

Be that as it may, as the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences, the matter would have to be investigated and therefore the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶9

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided they cooperate in the investigation.

¶10

Order Date :- 17.5.2019

¶11

A. Pt. Singh

Mangal Babu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Babu and 4 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bibi Bano Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Rampal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Kamlesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Monu Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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