Partly allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2019CRLP/15120/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under various IPC sections, holding that cognizable offence was contemplated. However, due to specific facts, the Court restrained arrest of the petitioner pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., directing cooperative investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partially allowed; petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Arvind 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. - 15120 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Arvind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mithilesh Kumar, 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.0219 of 2019, under Sections 323, 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jalaun, district Jalaun.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainantrespondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; that the matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the petitioner 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 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 shall not be arrested in the aforementioned

¶11

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 as expeditiously as possible.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 29.5.2019 SR

Arvind v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

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

Praveen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Avitap Singh @ Amitabh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others