Partly allowed

Dipty Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2019CRLP/15294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging a seuondhand FIR registered under IT Act was dismissed. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but granted directions restricting arrest and mandating an expedited investigation by the concerned authorities within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to be arrested prior to submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to conclude within two months.

Dipty Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15294 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dipty Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Agrawal,Ram Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing 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.0721 of 2019, under Sections 67 of Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; 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.

¶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 complaint which has been made against the petitioner and 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 as early as possible, preferably within a period of two 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

The SSP concerned will personally monitor the investigation.

¶12

Order Date :- 30.5.2019/VKG

Dipty Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipty Sharma 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

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