Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2019CRLP/17111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR lodged under various IPC sections and the 1967 Anti-social Activities Act. While dismissing the plea to quash, the Court directed that the petitioners not be arrested till the police report submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed not to be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to cooperation with investigation.

Rajesh and 29 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17111 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh And 29 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M. A. Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 17.5.2019 in Case Crime No. 499 of 2019, under Sections 147/149/343/336/309/188 IPC & read with section 7 Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report. The first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.4 at the inkling and connivance of police personnel. The brother of the petitioner no.1 was done to death by some anti-social elements and when the petitioners approached to the police authorities to take prompt step to arrest the accused persons. They instead of taking stringent action against the accused persons subjected to great harassment to the petitioners. The allegations made in the FIR with regard to creating ruckus and tumult are the only device to

¶8

give colour to the prosecution version. The entire prosecution story being the bundle of concoctions and fabrications does not deserve to sustain and is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be stifled at the very inception. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be exonerated at this stage.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie an offence under the aforesaid sections is made out against the petitioner at this stage thus, we do not find any cogent or justifiable reason to quash the F.I.R. The prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking the nature of accusations, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to the condition that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.6.2019 Naim

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and 29 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

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

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