Partly allowed

Nasreen Jahan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2019CRLP/16732/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to quash the FIR based on the request that it contained false and concocted allegations. While cognizable offences were prima facie made out, the interim order granted earlier was extended until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR quashment refused; interim order of 20.6.2019 extended till police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. submitted.

Nasreen Jahan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16732 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Nasreen Jahan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the orders dated 17.6.2019 & 20.6.2019, learned A.G.A. is unable to seek instruction.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 31.5.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 275/2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409 I.P.C. read with Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Munda Pandey, District- Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing him. He further submitted 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 the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is provided that t he interim order granted earlier on 20.6.2019 shall remain in operation till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner shall extend full co-operation with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.6.2019 M. Tariq

Nasreen Jahan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasreen Jahan 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

Neha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramsaran Vs State of U P and Another

Luxman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushil Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sangita and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others