Disposed

Paramhans Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2019CRLP/14733/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14733 of 2019 acknowledged material prima facie existence of a cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC. Despite calling the FIR a bundle of lies, the Court declined to quash the registration but directed that petitioners not be arrested pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while mandating cooperative investiga

What did the court decide?

Direction issued for non-arrest of petitioner until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Investigation to be completed within three months.

Paramhans Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14733 of 2019 Petitioner :- Paramhans Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar Dubey

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), Sri H. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant and 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. 0353 of 2019, under Sections 306 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Deoria.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); petitioners have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; much reliance has been placed upon the FIR lodged by the petitioner himself, copy of which has been annexed at page no. 34 of hte writ petition in support of the contention that matter requires deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the petitioner will participate and co-operate with the investigation; 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(s) 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

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.

¶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(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the SSP concerned.

¶10

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Kuldeep

Paramhans Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramhans Pandey and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnapal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Pintu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Muli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalua Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Jyotsana Jaiswal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others