Disposed

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

Allahabad HC28 May 2019CRLP/14759/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. alleged to be based on false and concocted allegations in a pending civil dispute, the High Court declined to quash the F.I.R. but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while requiring them to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. along with direction to cooperate in investigation.

Smt. Jyotsana Jaiswal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14759 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Jyotsana Jaiswal And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

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. 0012 of 2019 u/s 147, 447, 504 and 506 IPC PS Feelkhana District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner(s); civil dispute is pending between the parties; the matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the petitioner(s) will participate and cooperate 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 police authorities shall conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 SP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyotsana Jaiswal and 6 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

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

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

Muli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalua Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others