Dismissed

Vijendra Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2019CRLP/3613/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the petition seeking quashing of an FIR under various IPC sections alleging police assault and injuries. The court held that allegations of false implication and questioning of police procedural requirements are matters of defence and cannot sustain a quashing prayer where injuries were alleged to police personnel.

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Verma and Another 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. - 3613 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijendra Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushma Yadav,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; 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 20.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No.14 of 2019, under Sections 147, 332, 353, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Zamania, District Ghazipur.

¶7

The allegation in the first information report is to the effect that the police party, in furtherance of investigation of Case Crime No.12 of 2019, under Sections 420, 379 IPC and Section 66-C/66-D I.T. Act, visited the mohalla concerned to apprehend an accused, whose complicity had been discovered in the crime, when four named accused, namely, Krishna Verma (accused of Case Crime No.12 of 2019); Praveen Verma (accused of Case Crime No.12 of 2019); Vijendra Verma (the petitioner no.1-father of the accused of Case Crime No.12 of 2019); and Prabhat Verma (accused of Case Crime No.12 of 2019 and son of the petitioner no.1) along with 4-5 others attacked the police party thereby causing injuries to the police personnel.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 is father of accused of Case Crime No.12 of 2019 and the petitioner no.2 is brother of the petitioner no.1 and they have been falsely implicated just because they had questioned the police as to under which provision and for what offences, the sons of the petitioner no.1 were being arrested because the first information report of Case Crime No.12 of 2019 was registered against unknown persons.

¶9

The aforesaid contention is a matter of defence and cannot be accepted for the purpose of quashing the first information report which alleges that not only resistance was offered but the police personnel also suffered injuries.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report is not acceptable and is accordingly rejected. The petitioners may apply for bail.

¶11

Subject to above, the petition is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 11.2.2019 AKShukla/-

Vijendra Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Verma and Another 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

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

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

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

Shan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhinav Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Pratap Singh @ Dablu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others