Disposed

Ram Karan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019CRLP/2989/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Court declined to quash the FIR due to lack of evidence regarding prior possession. Instead, in the interests of justice, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to verify the petitioner's claim against the property before initiating coercive action or submitting a police report.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of subject to direction that Investigating Officer verify petitioner's claim before coercive action or filing report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Ram Karan and 6 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2989 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Karan And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 31.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1186 of 2018 at P.S. Handia, District-Prayagraj, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C.

¶7

The allegation in the first information report is to the effect that the accused party came with a JCB and demolished the entire house of the informant and took away all the belongings, etc.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.1 has obtained a decree against Brij Narayan and others for permanent prohibitory injunction and that the informant's party was never in possession and therefore the allegations are false.

¶9

Whether the informant party had been in possession or not is a matter of evidence.

¶10

Even otherwise the plaint or suit in which ex parte decree is said to have been obtained is not on record to demonstrate that the informant or her predecessor-in-interest had been party to the suit proceedings as also whether the suit related to the property of which demolition is stated to have occurred.

¶11

Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶12

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the Investigating Officer, before taking any coercive steps against the petitioners or before submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, shall verify from the documents, if any, produced by the petitioners as to whether they have rightful claim over the property of which demolition is alleged by the informant.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off .

¶14

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Ram Karan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan and 6 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu @ Jitendra Singh Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhirendra Yadav @ Nanhe and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kallu Hashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahavir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others