Disposed

Rajnesh @ Billu @ Rajnish Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019CRLP/20616/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed that the petitioners not be arrested in pursuance of an abduction FIR until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to their full cooperation during investigation. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed that petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of the FIR until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to their full cooperation during investigation.

Rajnesh @ Billu @ Rajnish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20616 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajnesh @ Billu @ Rajnish Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla for the petitioner and AGA for State.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 9.6.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0440 of 2019, under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, distt. Mainpuri and for mandamus directing respondent-2 not to arrest the petitioners in the present case.

¶7

In substance, in the FIR the allegation has been made that on 11.5.2019, Anita Devi wife of the informant had gone to the market and from Jyoti tri-junction the accused had enticed her and abducted her.

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner submits that Anita concealed her marital status and voluntarily married to Rajnesh @ Billu @ Rajnish Kumar, petitioner-1. They also filed Writ C No. 18382 of 2015 for grant of civil protection to them and obtained the order dated 28.5.2019 from this Court. Although it is alleged that abduction was taken place on 11.5.2019 but the FIR was lodged on 9.6.2019. He submits that at the most offence under Section 494 IPC can be said to be made against petitioner-1.

¶9

We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties.

¶10

A perusal of the FIR indicates that it discloses the cognizable offence as such it is not liable to be quashed at this stage.

¶11

However, considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of FIR dated 9.6.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0440 of 2019, under Section 366 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, distt. Mainpuri till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr P C, subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Rajnesh @ Billu @ Rajnish Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnesh @ Billu @ Rajnish Kumar and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmveer Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal Gaur and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Haseena and Another Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irshad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pinki Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others