Disposed

Yad Illahi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019CRLP/2663/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petition seeking quashing of an FIR in a cause of death case. While quashing was inappropriate due to ongoing investigation, the Court ordered continued investigation with no arrest allowed for the petitioner until the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash FIR dismissed; investigation to continue; arrest stayed until police report under S. 173(2) CrPC is submitted.

Yad Illahi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2663 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Yad Illahi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samir Srivastava,A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rohit Nandan Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Vinay Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey for respondent no.4 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 15th January, 2019 registered as Case Crime No.50 of 2019, under Section 304 IPC, police station Ghaziabad Kotwali, district Ghaziabad.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned First Information Report is that in respect of construction of a drain, some heated discussion took place and, thereafter, the brother of the informant was pushed as a consequence of which he fell down and turned unconscious and, later, was rushed to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post-mortem report of the deceased does not disclose any anti-mortem injury over any part of the body of the deceased and the cause of death could not be ascertained therefore viscera has been preserved. It has been submitted that under the circumstances the act of pushing the deceased narrated in the First Information Report cannot be directly attributable to the death of the deceased and there appears to be something else which caused his death and, therefore, till viscera report is received and further investigation is made as regards the cause of death of the deceased, the petitioner is entitled to protection.

¶9

As a person has died, we do not consider it to be a fit case where the First Information Report is liable to be quashed. More so, because the cause of

¶10

death is still to be ascertained and investigation is going on. Therefore the prayer of the petitioner to quash the First Information Report is rejected. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by providing that the investigation shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to the cooperation of the petitioner in the investigation, he shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence of the petitioner.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.2.2019. Rks.

Yad Illahi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yad Illahi 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

Shyam Sunder Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar @ Jaiki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lalu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishnu Dutt and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishnu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others