Partly allowed

Sarmukh Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019CRLP/24293/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the FIR regarding alleged forgery and cheating but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was not quashed. Petitioners directed not to be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to cooperation.

Sarmukh Singh and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24293 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sarmukh Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 27.09.2019 registered at Case Crime No. 0382 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Soron, District- Kasganj.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by respondent No.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submitted that 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 petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶7

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶8

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶9

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, 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 restraint that they shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶10

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 29.11.2019/Ashok Gupta

Sarmukh Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarmukh Singh and Another 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

Shameem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumit Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Beg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moizuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others