Disposed

Dhananjay Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2019CRLP/15269/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR but granted stay of arrest against the petitioners during the investigation phase, directing the police to conclude the inquiry and submit the report under Section 173 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Stay of arrest granted during investigation; direction to police to complete inquiry and submit Section 173 CrPC report immediately.

Dhananjay Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15269 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhananjay Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rabindra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Rabindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Kumari Meena, 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.0106 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; that the girl is adult and as per Medico Legal Report the age of the girl is about 19 years; that the matter needs a deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should 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.

¶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 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 police authorities shall conclude the investigation as early as possible from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Nitin Verma

Dhananjay Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Tripathi and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

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

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tanya Raj Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Nanu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others