Disposed

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2019CRLP/1471/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of F.I.R. in sexual offence case. Petitioner alleged false allegations by the girl. Court declined to quash due to cognizable offence but directed no arrest until police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Investigation to conclude within three months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1471 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vikas Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3 and Ku. Meena Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

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.247 of 2018, under Sections 323, 342, 376, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Varanasi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the girl has made a serious allegations against her father; that much reliance has been placed on the averments made in the statement of the girl made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., copy of which is produced today is taken on record; that the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents does not dispute the facts that the first informant was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner no.1; that much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.7 and 8 to the writ petition; that further contention is that the matter needs a deeper and fair investigation before any arrest can be given effect to; that 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 petitioner 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶9

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 petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.1.2019/VKG

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Yadav 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

Uday Sarup Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahnawaj and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kusuma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Gurvinda and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others