Disposed

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

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019CRLP/1796/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenged the quashing of an FIR under Sections 376, 377, 323, and 506 IPC. The High Court found facts not sufficient to quash the FIR but directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; directed to cooperate with investigation.

Ravi Babu Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1796 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Babu Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

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.682 of 2018, under Sections 376, 377, 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner; contention is that the first information report has been lodged in pursuance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; victim herself is the first informant; further contention is that the victim is a divorced lady; much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition; 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 alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A. G. A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F. I. R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

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.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.1.2019

¶12

R./

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Babu Maurya 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

Statutes considered

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

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