Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC30 May 2019CRLP/15321/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash the FIR as a no-injury case but directed the police not to arrest the petitioner(s) pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while directing cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; directed to cooperate with investigation; police directed to complete investigation early.

Nanu and Another 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. - 15321 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Nanu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sayeed Saif Ullah,Sufia Saba 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. 340 of 2019, under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Mandi, District- Saharanpur.

¶7

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; it is a no injury case; 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.

¶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

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.

¶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 the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Kuldeep

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanu 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

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

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

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