Disposed

Sonu @ Krishna and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019CRLP/146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the impugned FIR but granted a conditional exemption from arrest to the petitioners, directing them to cooperate with the investigation and police until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to arrest petitioners until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; directive to cooperate with investigation.

Sonu @ Krishna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 146 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sonu @ Krishna And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Joshi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

The exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 1223 of 2018, under Sections 452, 354, 376, 511, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Majhola, District- Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; petitioners have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; the first information report was lodged on 05.12.2018 in pursuance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.9 and 10 of the writ petition; even if the prosecution story is believe to be true, only allegation is attempt of rape; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A. G. A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F. I. R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶10

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F. I. R.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible,

¶12

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Mini

Sonu @ Krishna and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Krishna and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Ashiq and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Fatima Bi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Swami Shree Yogi Satyam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others