Partly allowed

Manish Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2019CRLP/3481/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR named the petitioner for extortion and threatening. The High Court directed that investigation proceeds without arresting the petitioner until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, provided the petitioner cooperates in interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Investigation continued; arrest stayed till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to petitioner's cooperation in interrogation.

Manish Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3481 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 17.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0438 of 2018, under Sections 386 and 506 IPC at Police Station - Expressway, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

The allegation in the first information report is that Sanjay Kapoor and two unknown persons where threatening the informant to extort money for completion of a project.

¶8

On 8.2.2019, after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court had passed following order:

¶9

"The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned FIR has been lodged naming one Sanjay Kapoor and two unknown persons for threatening the informant to illegally extract Rs. 50 lacs to enable him to complete the project. It has been submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and, after few months of lodging of the FIR, the petitioner's name has been maliciously included. It has been submitted that the petitioner had been a past employee in the project of the informant and had submitted his resignation on 30.11.2015, therefore, if the petitioner had been involved, he would have been named in the FIR.

¶10

Apart from above, many other submissions have been made to demonstrate that petitioner has been falsely implicated.

¶11

The matters requires consideration.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶13

Let notice be issued to the fourth respondent fixing 24.4.2019.

¶14

List this petition on 24.4.2019.

¶15

By the next date, the respondents shall file their respective counter affidavit.

¶16

Till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No.438 of 2018, under Sections 386 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Express-Way, District Gautam Budh Nagar, subject to his co-operation in the investigation.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not stayed the investigation of the aforesaid case."

¶18

Pursuant to the above order, the office has submitted report that notice was issued to the respondent no. 4 fixing 24.4.2019, but neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgement of the notice has been received back.

¶19

No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4 and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. However, a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State respondents.

¶20

In the short counter affidavit it is stated that in so far as the named accused Sanjay Kapoor is concerned, after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted. As regards other persons, investigation is stated to be pending. It is stated that the complicity of the petitioner has come to light in the statement of the main accused.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statement of the co-accused has very little evidentiary value and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to protection during the course of investigation.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to petitioner's co-operation in the investigation, he shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case, till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the petitioner would have to submit himself for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. A failure in that regard would be deemed non-co-operation in the investigation.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.4.2019 Md Faisal

Manish Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Srivastava 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

Netram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sushil Mishra @ Anshu Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Jaya Kaushik and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Deepak Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Aslam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others