Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2019CRLP/17061/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Supreme Court refused to quash the first information report but directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted that the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with investigation.

Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17061 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pandey 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 20.8.2014 bearing Case Crime No. 456 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, district Allahabad.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is still pending and 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Shukla 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

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

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

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