Disposed

Ankur Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019CRLP/1618/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioners' plea to quash the FIR in a matrimonial dispute but stayed their arrest to allow investigation to conclude. They were directed to cooperate with the police report

What did the court decide?

Stay on arrest of petitioners until police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; petitioners directed to cooperate with investigation.

Ankur Gupta and 3 Others 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. - 1618 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ankur Gupta And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singhal,Manoj Kumar Gupta

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Subodh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶6

The exemption application is allowed.

¶7

Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶8

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. 12 of 2019, under Sections- 498A, 323, 376, 420 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; controversy involved in issue is matrimonial in nature; entire family members have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife that the husband has already filed a divorce suit and the same is pending consideration before the court of competent jurisdiction; that as a counter blast to the said divorce suit, the present proceeding has been initiated; a case of grant of indulgence has been made out; 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 petitioners 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.

¶10

Per contra, Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has strongly and very vehemently opposed the present writ petition but he does not dispute the fact that the divorce suit is pending between the parties and learned A. G. A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in

¶11

the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out.

¶12

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.

¶13

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and also keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana; 2003 (4) SCC 675 , and Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. And others (SLP (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017 decided on 27.7.2017) , 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Mini

Ankur Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Gupta and 3 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahnawaj and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kusuma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Vikrant Pundir Alias Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pooran Singh Mehra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Babu Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others