Disposed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2019CRLP/17054/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. It refused the prayer for quashing but directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the police report submission, provided they cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the FIR refused; petitioner directed not to be arrested till police report submission subject to cooperation.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17054 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA for the respondents-State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 27.8.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 482 of 2018, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhi, district Firozabad.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed by the police authorities. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire prosecution story is the outcome of personal grudge of the respondent no. 3. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation made against the petitioner rather it reflects the manoeuvring on the part of the respondent no. 3. Therefore, the first information report so lodged by the respondent no. 3 is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner. The innocence of the petitioner cannot be adjudged at this stage.

¶9

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 or convincing reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first

¶10

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 directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that the petitioner shall co-operate 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 :- 24.6.2019 Shahnawaz

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh and 29 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others